Continuation Part 3 - Discussion of the Amanda Knox case

[Poppy1016]

I'm still waiting for one person who think AK and RS are guilty to say they believe budget cuts are the reason Amanda and Raffaele's interrogations weren't recorded.

I believe I asked Machiavelli several pages back if he bought Mignini's explanation. It really is a simple yes or no question. I'm assuming most guilt lovers would only answer with a long winded and illogical pile of dog crap as they dressed up excuse after excuse.

It's just amazing though, that not one person will publicly state they agree with Mignini's explanation.

They used up all their funds on phone tapping. lol

 

[HumanityBlues]

No, Knox claimed what happened (or better described, failed to explain and also failed to claim) with a series of inconsistent statements, descritpions, clamis and explanations.
Her claims are inconsistent and contradictory; her claims were late; her explanations are also contradictory (false memory?) and changing. She has witnesses against her. There is no way. What you say is false.
And she is not innocent: she is a convicted malicious liar; she lied voluntarily, repeatedly, and her convictions deems it was proven she was never forced into doing this. And the reason why she did this is obvious if you consider her guilty.

Hey Mach. While you're pretending to be resident pseudo legal scholar over there on PMF, have you explained to them the reasons Amanda will never be extradited back to Italy for anything, even if Hellmann's verdict is overturned? Do you understand the reasons for this? I mean, they all seem to be under the impression Amanda can be extradited back to Italy and no one has said a thing. You don't care to educate them at all? Very surprising. For shame.

 

[HumanityBlues]

They used up all their funds on phone tapping. lol

Seriously, its truly amazing if you just read Mignini's interview of what a piss poor liar the guy is. Just read through his interviews. It's like he's not even hiding it. These things are obvious.

 

[Poppy1016]

Seriously, its truly amazing if you just read Mignini's interview of what a piss poor liar the guy is. Just read through his interviews. It's like he's not even hiding it. These things are obvious.

Yes Pignini is the biggest liar of anyone in this case and other cases as well. Amazing that a serial abuser of his office, and the morally bankrupt system allows him to continue with his outrageous antics. And don't even get me started on Stephony and Commode.

 

[Malkmus]

In fact, the press was not especially appeasing the authorities, did not support them when they accused Lumumba and was not praising towards their policy such as their announcing the case closed three times.
The truth is, anyway, that the Italian press and public is addicted to much more and worse chaos.

I've been reading chronologically those articles following the case at Republicca, and frankly, Mach, I hardly see a difference between the Italian reporting of the case and that of the US. Both countries seem equally as critical of the investigation. So, I'm a bit surprised when you say that the majority of Italians think she and Raf are guilty given that so much of the media I've read so far has done a very good job of pointing out how silly the evidence was.

But you should read the full article, to understand the context. The article is a chronological summary of the various "truths" (the versions are numberes second, thirt truth, etc...):

... Seconda ricostruzione (9 novembre, ordinanza del gip di convalida del fermo): Amanda, Raffaele e Patrick piegano Meredith a un gioco sessuale cui la vittima si ribella, pagando con la vita. L' arma del delitto è uno dei due coltelli a serramanico sequestrati allo studente pugliese. L' impronta di scarpa impressa nel sangue di Meredith è incontrovertibilmente di Raffaele Sollecito. Lumumba è un fior di bugiardo: il suo locale era chiuso mentre uccideva Meredith e riapre i battenti per precostituire un alibi di cartapesta. Soprattutto, Lumumba è un gran furbacchione: traffica da raffinato conoscitore del tracciamento dei cellulari ...

.... Terza ricostruzione (20 novembre, cattura di Guede). Amanda, Raffaele e Guede uccidono Meredith. Lumumba si aggira da qualche parte non lontano (il suo cellulare viene agganciato dalla cella nei pressi della casa del delitto). Il perché, Dio solo lo sa. Resta indagato, ma il pm «sente il dovere» di segnalare al gip che gli indizi a suo carico non sono più gravi. Che in capo al furbacchione e assassino del 9 novembre non esiste oggi né il pericolo di fuga, né di inquinamento probatorio. Anche perché un professore universitario svizzero ha testimoniato di averlo visto nel suo locale (che dunque era aperto)


Second truth, Lumumba is a liar, his bar was closed. Third truth, Lumumba's cell phone was nearby but in the posecutor's opinion there is no serious evidence against him, there is a witness for his alibi and his bar was open.
The article's tone is obviously sarcastic. This is the context of your quote.

I had a feeling that it was perhaps more making fun of the police's ever-changing rotation of motives and suspects in this case, each time presented with equal confidence... but wasn't sure. I would say then that it emphasizes my first point above. I think it also showcases the tunnel vision present in the police's actions and again wonder how the Italian public could be so behind it.

 

[Malkmus]

I'm still waiting for one person who think AK and RS are guilty to say they believe budget cuts are the reason Amanda and Raffaele's interrogations weren't recorded.

I believe I asked Machiavelli several pages back if he bought Mignini's explanation. It really is a simple yes or no question. I'm assuming most guilt lovers would only answer with a long winded and illogical pile of dog crap as they dressed up excuse after excuse.

It's just amazing though, that not one person will publicly state they agree with Mignini's explanation.

I would pose the question differently. Do they believe his first answer, that there was too much "commotion" that night and were unprepared, or the second answer much later, that there had been insufficient budget. Once they've answered that they need to reconcile it with the fact that Mignini stated he had recorded all other witnesses he had questioned.

 

[HumanityBlues]

Yes Pignini is the biggest liar of anyone in this case and other cases as well. Amazing that a serial abuser of his office, and the morally bankrupt system allows him to continue with his outrageous antics. And don't even get me started on Stephony and Commode.

I just think it's really funny to have a resident pseudo scholar and lecturer here try to teach us the "logic" of spotting Amanda's so called lies when that person is absolutely godawful at spotting lies in the first place.

 

[Machiavelli]

I'm still waiting for one person who think AK and RS are guilty to say they believe budget cuts are the reason Amanda and Raffaele's interrogations weren't recorded.

I believe I asked Machiavelli several pages back if he bought Mignini's explanation. It really is a simple yes or no question. I'm assuming most guilt lovers would only answer with a long winded and illogical pile of dog crap as they dressed up excuse after excuse.

It's just amazing though, that not one person will publicly state they agree with Mignini's explanation.

Thre is no difference between Amanda's claims and the police and Anna Donnino's account of facts, with the sole exception of the hitting twice at the back of the head.

So, first of all, there would be nothing to check in a video, except the hitting at the back of the head.

Then, I had no reason to expect to see a video recording.
The video recording anyway could not be seen, because forbidden by law. If there was a video of the spontaneous statement to the public minister, the defence would have done anything possible to keep it out of the public's knowledge and off the courtroom.

But I did not expect to see a vdeo recording because, prevnted that it was a sponteneous statement, there could not be a video since there was a signed paper version. The existence of a spontaneous statement in a written form, itself implies there is no video. For legal reasons a spontaneous statement is redacted and signed in this form only if there is no recording.

For knowing all the above reasons, obviously I buy explanations given by Mignini. I know already there can't be a video of the spontaneous statement, and I know except the hitting on the head there is no difference between Amanda's and the police claims (by Amanda's claims I mean the claims all what she maintained during the investigation before the public Minister and three preliminary judges).

 

[Machiavelli]

Hey Mach. While you're pretending to be resident pseudo legal scholar over there on PMF, have you explained to them the reasons Amanda will never be extradited back to Italy for anything, even if Hellmann's verdict is overturned? Do you understand the reasons for this? ...

No.

Don't worry PMF have actual real legal scholars.

 

[Malkmus]

Thre is no difference between Amanda's claims and the police and Anna Donnino's account of facts, with the sole exception of the hitting twice at the back of the head.

Even this?

AK: So when I was with the police, they asked if I heard Meredith's scream.
I said no. They said "But if you were there, how could you not hear her
scream? If you were there?" I said "Look, I don't know, maybe I had my ears
covered." So they said "Fine, we'll write that down. Fine."

 

[HumanityBlues]

Thre is no difference between Amanda's claims and the police and Anna Donnino's account of facts, with the sole exception of the hitting twice at the back of the head.

So, first of all, there would be nothing to check in a video, except the hitting at the back of the head.

Then, I had no reason to expect to see a video recording.
The video recording anyway could not be seen, because forbidden by law. If there was a video of the spontaneous statement to the public minister, the defence would have done anything possible to keep it out of the public's knowledge and off the courtroom.

But I did not expect to see a vdeo recording because, prevnted that it was a sponteneous statement, there could not be a video since there was a signed paper version. The existence of a spontaneous statement in a written form, itself implies there is no video. For legal reasons a spontaneous statement is redacted and signed in this form only if there is no recording.

For knowing all the above reasons, obviously I buy explanations given by Mignini. I know already there can't be a video of the spontaneous statement, and I know except the hitting on the head there is no difference between Amanda's and the police claims (by Amanda's claims I mean the claims all what she maintained during the investigation before the public Minister and three preliminary judges).

Your answer is SO funny given that I wrote:

It really is a simple yes or no question. I'm assuming most guilt lovers would only answer with a long winded and illogical pile of dog crap as they dressed up excuse after excuse.

Guess that was a pretty good predictions. Wow. Anyways, you very long windedly way of saying almost nothing.

Did the police not record the interrogations because of budget cuts? Honestly, cut the diatribe and just answer the question. This is just foolishness at this point.

 

[HumanityBlues]

No.

Don't worry PMF have actual real legal scholars.

They have about 3 lawyers who aren't even smart enough to research an easy extradition issue. Why don't you ask them, and come back to us. How is it with all these legal scholars at PMF you are all so duped on the issue of possible extradition? Just come back whenever you figure it out and tell you if you're right or wrong.

 

[Machiavelli]

Did the police not record the interrogations because of budget cuts? Honestly, cut the diatribe and just answer the question. This is just foolishness at this point.

My answer was serious and explicative.
I showed that the question itself is irrelevant. I think that you don't have a "right" to decide what the actual diatribe is.
I also answered "yes" anyway and you skipped it.

However,
I want to give you a chevalry point, and - even if I should not do it because there is no evidence of it - I will propose the following scenario:

The police had a *video* recording of the 01:45 interrogation, and destroyed the 01:45 interrogation video recording in order to conceal the hitting twice at the back of the head.

Then, they did not record the 05.54 spontaneous statement, because otherwise the prosecutor or someone may have asked them why they didn't have the 01:45 recording.

The above scenario cannot be used because there is no evidence of it. And I don't believe it: I think they never recorded the interrogation nor the spontaneous statement. However, you may take it; are you satisfied with the above scenario?
To me, the above scenario means Knox is guilty.

 

[smkovalinksy]

Yes Pignini is the biggest liar of anyone in this case and other cases as well. Amazing that a serial abuser of his office, and the morally bankrupt system allows him to continue with his outrageous antics. And don't even get me started on Stephony and Commode.

I had to laugh at your "Pignini", "Stephony", and "Commode". Your candor is refreshing.

 

[Malkmus]

speechless.

 

[HumanityBlues]

My answer was serious and explicative.
I showed that the question itself is irrelevant. I think that you don't have a "right" to decide what the actual diatribe is.
I also answered "yes" anyway and you skipped it.

However,
I want to give you a chevalry point, and - even if I should not do it because there is no evidence of it - I will propose the following scenario:

The police had a *video* recording of the 01:45 interrogation, and destroyed the 01:45 interrogation video recording in order to conceal the hitting twice at the back of the head.

Then, they did not record the 05.54 spontaneous statement, because otherwise the prosecutor or someone may have asked them why they didn't have the 01:45 recording.

The above scenario cannot be used because there is no evidence of it. And I don't believe it: I think they never recorded the interrogation nor the spontaneous statement. However, you may take it; are you satisfied with the above scenario?
To me, the above scenario means Knox is guilty.

Machiavelli believes budget cuts are the reason the interrogation wasn't it recorded'. He buys that explanation. Keep that in mind when you read his other fanciful and just as ridiculous deductions.

Also no one cares if you think a question is a irrelevant so long as you can just give a straight forward answer on anything. But your assessment of the question is duly noted for whatever that's worth.

 

[js202]

speechless.

My sympathies. When dealing with someone who is quite clearly out of his or her mind, it is merely rational to be speechless.

Those who find themselves less than sympathetic to the English Romantic poet Wordsworth have been known to refer to him as "Words Words," throw up their hands and cease reading him altogether. I would suggest that a similar reaction to the present scenario would not be inappropriate. Aside from the niggling genius poet/internet crank juxtaposition, of course, there are glaring similarities.

 

[Machiavelli]

Even this?

Even this?

Quote:
AK: So when I was with the police, they asked if I heard Meredith's scream.
I said no. They said "But if you were there, how could you not hear her
scream? If you were there?" I said "Look, I don't know, maybe I had my ears
covered." So they said "Fine, we'll write that down. Fine."

Obviously I consider Amanda's claims by the preliminary judges and before the Public Minister.

This answer of Amanda in her trial testimony, I consider it obviously a lie, a spinning and twisting in attempt to justify what she was unable to justify before.

She downplays concepts and makes them ring soft, twisted, and false. "maybe I had my ears covered" and "fine write down" is a late, senseless comment, manipulative as the rest. The police didn't know about "the scream" and never asked her about "the scream". This is not what is written in her statement by the way: instead, in her statement there is quite an explanation and a consistent little story about the point of ears, kitchen, shock, fear. She says she was suddenly frigtened about the scream and therefore she covers her ears; she says does not remember anything else after that due to shock and confusion in her head. Then she said she was in shock but still she could imagine what happened. Also stated that Patrick was "investigating" by questioning her to understand if she remembered anything about that night, and she said (to Anna Donnino) that she was very afraid of Patrick, that he was a bad guy, and that he wanted to have sex with Meredith and they went together in her room.
In the courtroom she puts in a "maybe" as if it was a joke and does not deal with the actual words she had actually signed and with what Anna Donnino testified. She also places the police in a spontaneous statement when she previously never claimed they took part.

 

[Machiavelli]

Machiavelli believes budget cuts are the reason the interrogation wasn't it recorded'. He buys that explanation. Keep that in mind when you read his other fanciful and just as ridiculous deductions.

Also no one cares if you think a question is a irrelevant so long as you can just give a straight forward answer on anything. But your assessment of the question is duly noted for whatever that's worth.

Keep in mind that you are unable to support a single of the nonsense statements that you seemengly endorse.
Like police diffusing prejudice to influence the judges by releasing pictures in UK tabloids ...

 

[HumanityBlues]

My sympathies. When dealing with someone who is quite clearly out of his or her mind, it is merely rational to be speechless.

Those who find themselves less than sympathetic to the English Romantic poet Wordsworth have been known to refer to him as "Words Words," throw up their hands and cease reading him altogether. I would suggest that a similar reaction to the present scenario would not be inappropriate. Aside from the niggling genius poet/internet crank juxtaposition, of course, there are glaring similarities.

Pseudo intellectualism at is finest. A lot of the times the speaker forgets the actual point they make or doesn't understand what they're saying so long as what is said "sounds" intelligent----when in fact broken down, its all just pseudo intellectual babble that proves and means almost nothing.