Continuation Part 3 - Discussion of the Amanda Knox case

[Kaosium]

!? If she provided a consistent position nobody would ignore it.
But she did not provide any explantion, any version, any clarification.

'I wasn't there, I can't know who the murderer was,' or however she said it, is pretty damn clear. If the authorities are claiming she 'changed her story' again and using it to condemn her even moreso as a 'compulsive liar' then it's obvious they got the message.

However for them to claim both that and that she hadn't 'retracted' her 'accusation' is beyond bizarre, and yet another symptom of the pattern of dishonesty from the police and prosecution.

 

[Mary_H]

I don't. I want to know why he is so convinced of guilt.

Regardless of any other alleged evidence, Machiavelli's bottom line is that Amanda is guilty because she lied. You will find his assertions to that effect in at least 60% of his posts, in this forum and in others. Amanda was guilty of murder because she lied, and now that she is no longer guilty of murder she is still guilty of calunnia, because she lied.

Machiavelli takes great umbrage at Amanda's lies -- they offend him very deeply. He is so overwhelmed by his sense of her as a liar, that he cannot even bring himself to name the lies. His burden is heavy.

 

[Caper]

btw: shown to be not valid by whom? On what argument?

Now, you made one step. You only need one more step to rule out also the second hypothesys, the "false memory", after that second step you will reach my same conclusion: the logically strongest and most valid explanation is, a rational behaviour of a guilty person.

What was the relationship between Amanda and Rudy? Were they Facebook friends? Did they email each other? Did they phone each other? Seems pretty strange that two people would just meet up with each other and decide to rape someone out of the blue. Can you detail their relationship with Rudy.

 

[davefoc]

I'm with you on that, but I suspect Machiavelli still has his own opinions. I'm against arguing every point again, individually.

Rolfe.

I agree with you on this. Pretty much every point you listed and more has been thoroughly discussed and it seems unlikely that anybody that has participated in this thread for very long is going to change their mind or even offer a new argument. The recent thorough discussion of the "confession/accusation" is a pretty good analog for what has transpired with each of the other points of evidence in this thread. (Although the recent discussion was particularly impressive with regard to the persuasiveness and thoroughness of the arguments put forth I thought).

I was curious if Machiavelli had changed his mind about anything with regard to the evidence in this case. New information and analysis has substantially reduced the credibility of every piece of evidence used against RS/AK (IMHO of course). My question is whether Machiavelli could pick out any evidence that he originally thought showed evidence of guilt that he has changed his mind about. Does he still think the video showed AK? Does he still think RS/AK bought bleach? Does he still think there is credible eyewitness testimony that RS/AK were near her apartment at a time that is within the range of time possible that the murder took place? Does he still completely discount the TOD arguments based on stomach contents? Etc.

ETA: To be clear my question is whether there is any evidence that Machiavelli has changed his mind about, not what his specific thoughts are about the evidence I listed above are.

 

[CDHost]

I continue to have trouble grasping this concept of "witness" and "suspect." The police come to your home or office and say "Come with us." You say "No," and they say "You must" and grab your arms. By any rational definition, you are now under arrest. If you chose to go to the police station voluntarily, and you didn't like the direction the conversation was turning, you might say "I'm leaving." If the police say "You can't leave," you are under arrest. You say "I want my lawyer," and they say "You can't have one," you are being held incommunicado, which can't be legal in a democratic society. And if the police say "You must answer our questions," and you say "I refuse," what can they do? Waterboard you? String you up by your thumbs? I just don't see a gray area between "arrested" and "not arrested," but obviously others do.

Well the US government seems to basically agree that you have less rights in Italy (Arrest in Italy).

But mainly I suspect this is a translation issue. Obviously once you are detained you are arrested in an English/USA sense. The problem is "arrest" in our sense is part of English law, so I suspect it is somewhat different around the edges. What sounds like nonsense to Americans may be sensible (though still terrible law) if Machiavelli were using a word other than arrest.

As an aside the page linked above does indicate that you can plea bargain which people were assuring us didn't exist.

 

[JREF2010]

I agree with you on this. Pretty much every point you listed and more has been thoroughly discussed and it seems unlikely that anybody that has participated in this thread for very long is going to change their mind or even offer a new argument. The recent thorough discussion of the "confession/accusation" is a pretty good analog for what has transpired with each of the other points of evidence in this thread. (Although the recent discussion was particularly impressive with regard to the persuasiveness and thoroughness of the arguments put forth I thought).

I was curious if Machiavelli had changed his mind about anything with regard to the evidence in this case. New information and analysis has substantially reduced the credibility of every piece of evidence used against RS/AK (IMHO of course). My question is whether Machiavelli could pick out any evidence that he originally thought showed evidence of guilt that he has changed his mind about. Does he still think the video showed AK? Does he still think RS/AK bought bleach? Does he still think there is credible eyewitness testimony that RS/AK were near her apartment at a time that is within the range of time possible that the murder took place? Does he still completely discount the TOD arguments based on stomach contents? Etc.

ETA: To be clear my question is whether there is any evidence that Machiavelli has changed his mind about, not what his specific thoughts are about the evidence I listed above are.

I dont know how anyone could tell how many changed their minds about the case, but it crosses my mind at times.

After the knife was really put under the spotlight, it was so intense. I thought it was the biggest legal risk... when it came out so clearly to be in the defense favor, and add that to the prosecutions own data of no blood found on the blade, then the crevice found not to be cleaned, it was a huge paradigm shift for many.

But reading the main pro-Migninni forums, the knife's complete disintegration didnt seem to make an impact at all in their belief for guilt.

I think it has to go back to basics that they can't comprehend the police doing anything wrong, and that the police have to be right because they wouldn't arrest people for no reason.

Or maybe they felt the interrogation was the tell all for the entire case, kind of a Edgardo Giobbi approach, that they dont even look , or need, any other evidence.

 

[Ammonitida]

Regardless of any other alleged evidence, Machiavelli's bottom line is that Amanda is guilty because she lied. You will find his assertions to that effect in at least 60% of his posts, in this forum and in others. Amanda was guilty of murder because she lied, and now that she is no longer guilty of murder she is still guilty of calunnia, because she lied.

Machiavelli takes great umbrage at Amanda's lies -- they offend him very deeply. He is so overwhelmed by his sense of her as a liar, that he cannot even bring himself to name the lies. His burden is heavy.

Machiavelli is under the belief that his arguments could have swayed at least one of the lay jurors. If his argument for guilt centers around her lies then he would have failed miserably IMO. The Hellman jury accepted that Amanda willfully and maliciously slandered Lumumba but still acquitted her on the murder charge. Clearly, her "lies" were not considered strong evidence of guilt if evidence at all. That's a testament to how weak the jury considered the other prosecution evidence to be (the stuff mentioned by Rolfe). So what does Machiavelli have left to argue with?

 

[Ammonitida]

You are not seriously saying this gives a consistent explanation of things.
This is entirely contradictory ("I did not lie").
It also comes after the statement "the truth is I don't know what is the truth".

So if she did not lie, and if she doesn't know what is the truth, how is it that she knows for certain where she was that night?
And where is the explanation for why she gave two different versions during the previous 24 hours? first version: I remember about Patrick killing Meredith (05:54 statement); second version: I am not sure, I don't know what is the truth. Now whe have a third version more skewed towards one possibility: but where is the explanation for the previous two vrsions? And where is certainity, and what are her grounds for certainity? And what are the details of her acccount?

In her version there is nothing. It's a mystery for me how you can fail to see how inacceptable her position is.

These contradictions are explained by false memories. Other posters have already explained this in depth to you and you ignored them. Now will you inform your fellow PMfers that Amanda did in fact retract her "accusation" against Lumumba before his alibi was established? And will you finally concede that the police erred when they held a innocent man for two weeks on such flimsy "evidence"?

 

[Machiavelli]

You have actually helped convince me the opposite of your argument. I had been one of the few holdouts here not buying into the false memory thing. The posters here have spoken common sense which rings true to me. Your convoluted leaps of faith and fantasy just didn't cut it.

You can keep trying if you so desire. Personally, I think you started with a spoon, then a shovel, and now have your backhoe deep into a pit you may never get out of. Just my opinion.

The first times that I was reading your posts, I understood that you started to believe the defendants were innocent after seeing the forensics picking up the bra clasp.
Then I also remember a post of yours where you explained that circumstantial evidence was not good to convict, since a set of indirect, uncertain evidence seemed to you logically like a pile of instable pieces one on top of each other.
Given these premises I didn't really have any expectation that you would change your mind in my favour on an argument that I consider logical.

I'm just curious, what was the argument that "rang true" to you?

 

[Machiavelli]

I agree with you on this. Pretty much every point you listed and more has been thoroughly discussed and it seems unlikely that anybody that has participated in this thread for very long is going to change their mind or even offer a new argument. The recent thorough discussion of the "confession/accusation" is a pretty good analog for what has transpired with each of the other points of evidence in this thread. (Although the recent discussion was particularly impressive with regard to the persuasiveness and thoroughness of the arguments put forth I thought).

I was curious if Machiavelli had changed his mind about anything with regard to the evidence in this case. New information and analysis has substantially reduced the credibility of every piece of evidence used against RS/AK (IMHO of course). My question is whether Machiavelli could pick out any evidence that he originally thought showed evidence of guilt that he has changed his mind about. Does he still think the video showed AK? Does he still think RS/AK bought bleach? Does he still think there is credible eyewitness testimony that RS/AK were near her apartment at a time that is within the range of time possible that the murder took place? Does he still completely discount the TOD arguments based on stomach contents? Etc.

ETA: To be clear my question is whether there is any evidence that Machiavelli has changed his mind about, not what his specific thoughts are about the evidence I listed above are.

I have never belived to the buying of any bleach, I have never believed there was any probative video.
I think the credibility of Curatolo was the same as in the first trial, or even stronger, by crossing his testimony with other witneses.
However, I never put a lot of weight (personally) on Antonio Curatolo, that because of my personal decision.
The TOD is part of the only arguments that would be useful to build a defensive argument, however these arguments do not consist in pieces of evidence that lost their credibility, they are instead raised as evidence of innocence, so they would depend on entirely different logical requirements. They do not have the power to discredit actual pieces of evidence. They would work if they were were able to build a demonstrtion that proves innocence with certainity; they lack any certainity, so they canot overturn a pattern of evidence which is, to me, certain.

 

[Bob001]

Well the US government seems to basically agree that you have less rights in Italy (Arrest in Italy).

From the above link:

"... An American consular officer will visit any U.S. citizen in jail as soon as possible after his/her arrest. Consular officers cannot obtain a prisoner's release. A consular officer's responsibility is to: ensure that the accused is receiving the same treatment that is accorded to anyone facing a similar charge in Italy, that the accused is receiving due process under Italian law, that he/she is not being discriminated against because he/she is American, that he/she is not being mistreated, and that he/she is being represented by an attorney of his/her choice. The consular officer will provide the accused with a list of attorneys from which the accused may select an attorney. .... "

Some previous comments in this thread seemed to indicate that Amanda didn't get much help from the U.S. embassy. Do we know if she or her parents contacted the embassy BEFORE her first visit to the police station? Did anyone meet with her immediately after the murder, offer advice ("No cartwheels!"), give her a list of lawyers? Or was her first contact with the embassy AFTER she was arrested? The continuing image I have is that Amanda wandered into a snake pit wearing sandals because nobody told her she needed boots.

In one of the more heartbreaking moments in the CBS special last week, one commentator said that after the murder one of her parents told Amanda to leave Italy and go stay with a relative in Germany, but she wanted to stay in Perugia and help the police find Meredith's killer. When somebody you trust tells you to get out of Dodge, believe them.

 

[CDHost]

Some previous comments in this thread seemed to indicate that Amanda didn't get much help from the U.S. embassy. Do we know if she or her parents contacted the embassy BEFORE her first visit to the police station? Did anyone meet with her immediately after the murder, offer advice ("No cartwheels!"), give her a list of lawyers? Or was her first contact with the embassy AFTER she was arrested? The continuing image I have is that Amanda wandered into a snake pit wearing sandals because nobody told her she needed boots.

In one of the more heartbreaking moments in the CBS special last week, one commentator said that after the murder one of her parents told Amanda to leave Italy and go stay with a relative in Germany, but she wanted to stay in Perugia and help the police find Meredith's killer. When somebody you trust tells you to get out of Dodge, believe them.

I'm agreeing with Lifetime's read. Amanda picked a bad time to do teenage rebellion. Edda was starting to suspect how much danger she was in and was flying over. That's what prompted the police to be so rough on her the night of the 5th. By the morning of the 6th Amanda's parents would be in town. But Amanda was misreading the situation.

Her naiveté was tragic.

 

[Mary_H]

From the above link:

"... An American consular officer will visit any U.S. citizen in jail as soon as possible after his/her arrest. Consular officers cannot obtain a prisoner's release. A consular officer's responsibility is to: ensure that the accused is receiving the same treatment that is accorded to anyone facing a similar charge in Italy, that the accused is receiving due process under Italian law, that he/she is not being discriminated against because he/she is American, that he/she is not being mistreated, and that he/she is being represented by an attorney of his/her choice. The consular officer will provide the accused with a list of attorneys from which the accused may select an attorney. .... "

Some previous comments in this thread seemed to indicate that Amanda didn't get much help from the U.S. embassy. Do we know if she or her parents contacted the embassy BEFORE her first visit to the police station? Did anyone meet with her immediately after the murder, offer advice ("No cartwheels!"), give her a list of lawyers? Or was her first contact with the embassy AFTER she was arrested? The continuing image I have is that Amanda wandered into a snake pit wearing sandals because nobody told her she needed boots.
In one of the more heartbreaking moments in the CBS special last week, one commentator said that after the murder one of her parents told Amanda to leave Italy and go stay with a relative in Germany, but she wanted to stay in Perugia and help the police find Meredith's killer. When somebody you trust tells you to get out of Dodge, believe them.

The highlighted sentence is entirely accurate in my opinion. It was the authorities in Perugia (I'm not sure which ones) who notified the US Embassy in Rome that they were holding an American under suspicion of being involved in a murder. There is a document (a cable?) that has been posted here before, showing that the embassy or consulate or whatever was keeping an eye on the situation but that no one contacted Amanda until later -- the exact amount of time, I can't remember -- something like 48 hours? Anybody here have the link?

 

[Mary_H]

I'm agreeing with Lifetime's read. Amanda picked a bad time to do teenage rebellion. Edda was starting to suspect how much danger she was in and was flying over. That's what prompted the police to be so rough on her the night of the 5th. By the morning of the 6th Amanda's parents would be in town. But Amanda was misreading the situation.

Her naiveté was tragic.

I would state it differently. I would say the mistakes the police made and the legal violations Mignini committed were tragic.

 

[komponisto]

Are we going on like this till the motivations report is published?

(Will someone translate that, is maybe the more pertinent question?)

You better believe it.

 

[Mary_H]

You better believe it.

You are the best, komponisto. Thank you.

 

[Caper]

The first times that I was reading your posts, I understood that you started to believe the defendants were innocent after seeing the forensics picking up the bra clasp.
Then I also remember a post of yours where you explained that circumstantial evidence was not good to convict, since a set of indirect, uncertain evidence seemed to you logically like a pile of instable pieces one on top of each other.
Given these premises I didn't really have any expectation that you would change your mind in my favour on an argument that I consider logical.

I'm just curious, what was the argument that "rang true" to you?

Can you get back to be on how Amanda and Rudy knew eachother?

 

[CDHost]

I would state it differently. I would say the mistakes the police made and the legal violations Mignini committed were tragic.

Nah, Amanda's mistakes were tragic. The police mistakes and legal violations were criminal.

 

[komponisto]

One of the most risible statements I have seen lately, from this ill-informed essay:

To the credit of the Italian carabinieri and other police involved in the Knox case, her story implicating her African boss for murder seemed far too convenient. But their policing instincts did not kick in soon enough for Lumumba to avoid spending those two weeks in jail.

Lumumba's release is to the credit of the "policing instincts" of Mignini and his goons? What planet is this person living on? Their "policing instincts" were the whole reason he was arrested in the first place; Amanda's (coerced) story was "convenient" precisely for them!

On the contrary, it was private citizens (most notably the famous Swiss professor) who provided Patrick with a solid alibi, on their own initiative; the police did nothing to help, except reluctantly recognize the indisputable when they were banged over the head with it.

(And no, by the way, the Carabinieri were not involved in this case. You may recall that Mignini was caught on tape with Bob Graham wishing that they had been. Instead, it was handled -- or should I say bungled -- by the Polizia di Stato.)

 

[BaileyBell]

Some of the guilters will never change their minds. I think people just have to accept that and move on. They have formed a community, if they deviate from that community's rule, they are excommunicated to a certain extent. It does seem kind of cult-like really. I'm sure they think they can say the same thing about this Jref forum, although here you are at least allowed to have and type dissenting opinions and conclusions.


Accept it. Move on.