Continuation Part 3 - Discussion of the Amanda Knox case

[Machiavelli]

I'd say forced statement.


I want to make very clear that these events seem more unreal to me that what I said before, that I stayed at Raffaele's house.

Who is the REAL murder? This is particularly important because I don't feel I can be used as condemning testimone in this instance.


No, she succeeded. The criminal cops and the criminal prosecutor OTOH failed to give a consistent account of the interrogation night and failed to give a sane version of what they think happened the night of the crime.

Face it, Mach, you will not win, you already lost and it's over. Amanda is free, walking in the sun smiling, enjoying her family, friends and nature around Seattle.

While you're wasting your days and nights arguing delusions and proving only how right Festinger was.

What you state is false and will always be.
I don't care and never cared about where Knox is. I may only care of who she is: she is a murderer. She will always be, and she will be shown to be, this will not change. This is the truth, and truth will never back down.

 

[Machiavelli]

No. It is damning only to the cop criminals that tortured her.



No. She described stress and extreme exhaustion, cops yelling at her, threatening her, hits to the head for not remembering the facts "correctly". By any civilised standards this is torture and a crime.

That you see nothing wrong with it, even defend and side with the criminals, given your declared intellectual background, is quite disturbing.

She claimed being hit twice at the back of the head and wrote nothing else.

"extreme exshaustion" is a subjective feeling, not a fact: the fact is her interrogation lasted two hours and no physical abuse or deprivation was claimed (no bathroom deprivation, no drink or food deprivation, not even an interrogation was claimed subsequently to the 01:45 statement).
Try to face this.

No yelling.

And, the rest of Amanda's claim and explanations are inconsistences and further lies.
Ad there are witnesses.

 

[Kaosium]

Yes I realised that, which is why I said "published link/source". I probably should have added media.

Heh, I went and looked for one myself. I'd like to see an interview with Amanda myself, written or video. Hopefully in the latter case one where she doesn't cry! I guess it's only been twice now, but it just makes me sad to see it even if they're probably happy tears. I suppose she might be waiting until she can do one where she doesn't.

I've always thought it possible she may have just been doing some stretching/calisthenics, which I frankly find perfectly *normal* to do in stressful/waiting situations. Normal for me anyway.

Not for me, but sitting around the Questura basically all day if it was part of her routine it would seem natural she'd do it. What I thought interesting was just how they appeared to use that to distract attention from the story they were telling in court that day. As Dan-O has posted before, it started with Profazio if I recall correctly at the outset of the day's proceeding when he talked to the media, then they all made sure to give it a mention, the word for the day was definitely 'cartwheels' and most media picked up on it as a divine revelation.

Imagine if they'd caught her on tape picking her nose or something, when I consider that the 'cartwheels' jokes seem pretty tame compared to 'booger' ones that could have been...

 

[Machiavelli]

Your point that a video of the interrogation wouldn't be used as evidence at trial is probably correct, but it is also totally irrelevant. If there were a video of the interrogation, we would know whether coercion was involved, and if so how severe it was. That goes to whether the statements are admissible as evidence. Coerced statements have no probative value for any purpose (except to prove police misconduct in obtaining them).

...

Why irrelevant? That puts in perspective the fact that there is no video recording.
I do not expect to have or to see any video recording. And I do not accept any deduction of misconduct based on the sole the absence of video recordings.
I do not accept any deduction of Amanda's innocence and coercion based on police misconduct neither.

In order to prove coercion or false memory, I would demand evidence that the hand written note was not voluntary, and demand either an early explanation and consistent account by Knox, or evidence that there was a mental disfunction leading to false memory, and a framework compatible with a consistent follow-up of this clinical state.
I would also demand that Anna Donnino provided a testimony compatible with an alternative description.

The rest - video, non video: hitting or not hitting, misconduct or lawful behaviour - is irrelevant to the point.

 

[Machiavelli]

They told her they had evidence of a staging? Then she was a suspect already and entitled to a lawyer.

A suspect of complicity in murder and rape is not only entitled to a lawyer: must also be arrested.
We don't have an option like a formal suspect of murder and rape who is walking free. From the moment she is formaly entitled to have a lawyer and is no longer a witness, she has to be jailed.

 

[js202]

Why irrelevant? That puts in perspective the fact that there is no video recording.
I do not expect to have or to see any video recording. And I do not accept any deduction of misconduct based on the sole the absence of video recordings.
I do not accept any deduction of Amanda's innocence and coercion based on police misconduct neither.

In order to prove coercion or false memory, I would demand evidence that the hand written note was not voluntary, and demand either an early explanation and consistent account by Knox, or evidence that there was a mental disfunction leading to false memory, and a framework compatible with a consistent follow-up of this clinical state.
I would also demand that Anna Donnino provided a testimony compatible with an alternative description.

The rest - video, non video: hitting or not hitting, misconduct or lawful behaviour - is irrelevant to the point.

In fact, you may demand nothing.

Your opinion is tortured past incoherence, and quite meaningless. It is also morally reprehensible, but, given that you are an anonymous nobody on an internet message board, this is beside the point.

 

[pilot padron]

Sick and pathetic

Amanda and Raffaele are free now, no longer silenced by their prison cells. We heard from Amanda's mother that there was no cartwheel, now we have recently heard from Amanda that there was no cartwheel. Just another fantasy designed to destroy an innocent young woman.

Those who will forever believe that Amanda is guilty will simply accuse her of being a liar, but those of us who know that she is an honest caring young woman, know that she speaks the truth.

All because of a cartwheel. What a joke! What a sick pathetic joke!

One side is completely right and one side is completely wrong. There is no middle ground here. The Anti-Knox groups are noticeably angry and responding in their typical fashion. It is no surprise that they are angry, as they must now realize that they are on the side that is completely wrong. Of course the few that hang on will never admit that they are wrong. The rest will just disappear.

WOW

So three people say there was no cartwheel.
Edda, Amanda, and Bruce Fisher/Fischer

However, these same three people have been previously documented on numerous occasions as, uhhhhhh..... "stretching the truth".

One of the three's 'best truths they can remember' even prompted her own*lead* Defense Attorney to say he had difficulty finding truth.
This because because she already had told him 3 very differing versions.

That is what is sick and pathetic about all 3 of the individuals you cite.

Color me unimpressed.
Almost as unimpressed as if you had "spoken to an Italian lawyer" and proffer that to us as some sort of simpleton badge of credibility for an argument.

 

[Machiavelli]

What should be self-evident even to you is that persons, even Machiavellian Persons, who have been subject to an overnight police interogation while in police custody can never ever provide spontanious statements. The overnight police interrogation makes spontenaity absolutely impossible. Please, please spare me your quantum Italian law excuses regarding Amanda's legal state. They do not serve the truth in this matter.

Oh by the way, that the break-in was staged is not "evidence". That there was a broken window and a rock on the floor is evidence. That this evidence showed a staged break in is a "theory" proposed by the PM and ILE to fit evidence that also clearly fits a theory that an actual break in occured. I somehow suspect that ILE or the PM failed to share that truth with Amanda that night or the following morning.

Maybe they only believed there was evidence of staging. But for sure they shared with her the fact that there was evidence since Sollecito had just accused her of lying, withrew her alibi, and blamed her for his previous false account. You seem to forget this detail.

The people in custody cannot provide spontaneous statement? Maybe.
But this is not enough. I would need more explanations to excuse Knox. Because Knox did not release just any wrong statement. She released a statement which she later failed to correct, to motivate, and failed to provide an alternative explanation for where she was the night and for why she released the statements. Amanda also wrote a hand written note which she claims to be voluntary and which is a false testimony besides being a second false accusation. She also failed to clarify the point before three preliminary judges and one magistrate, and failed to provide written explanations of any kind. There is at least one non-police witness testifying against her.
Amanda is inconsistent and lying on her false accusation. And this is evident. And this is logically explained straightforwardly if she is involved in the murder.

 

[Supernaut]

Long. long ago...

...I used to post on a forum whose software allowed members to rate each up or down (the privilege had to be earned with enough posts and enough +ves from the old hands), and if one's total rating went too far negative one's posts became invisible to anyone who wasn;t logged in..

It worked well, didn't censor as such, but it sorted out relentless trolls and thread-flooders like the one here at the moment, who I know for a fact is discouraging people from posting.

 

[Machiavelli]

In fact, you may demand nothing.

Your opinion is tortured past incoherence, and quite meaningless. It is also morally reprehensible, but, given that you are an anonymous nobody on an internet message board, this is beside the point.

You neither. You are judgeing the arguer for being a person exactly like you.

 

[js202]

WOW

So three people say there was no cartwheel.
Edda, Amanda, and Bruce Fisher/Fischer

However, these same three people have been previously documented on numerous occasions as, uhhhhhh..... "stretching the truth".

One of the three's 'best truths theyy can remember' even prompted her own*lead* Defense Attorney to say he had difficulty finding truth.
This because because she already had told him 3 very differing versions.

That is what is sick and pathetic about all 3 of the individuals you cite.

Color me unimpressed.
Almost as unimpressed as if you had "spoken to an Italian lawyer" and proffer that to us as some sort of simpleton badge of credibility for an argument.

Can we infer that you are also colored unimpressed by Judge Hellmann's verdict? Presumably you will be equally unimpressed when his Motivations Report comes out, arguing the position that, in fact, Rudy Guede committed this horrific crime all by his lonesome?

Of course, now that the Knox/Sollecito case is over and done with, these things juxtaposed against the fact that *anyone* would consider a person performing cartwheels -- all day long and every day of the week, if it suited them to do so -- indicative of consciousness of guilt are quite paltry. The former are now part of history, rapidly receding in all well adjusted persons' rearview mirrors; the latter, from a sociological standpoint, is still current and exists as ripe data for a case study of cult behavior and abnormal psychology.

 

[Supernaut]

thread flooding.

It's a strategy which, in a way, is the opposite of 'bumping' a thread or a comment on a thread.

The intention with flooding is to bury the discourse in page after page of useless verbiage, which basically renders the thread useless as a source of information.

Of course I could be called naive for assuming that a discussion forum is actually meant to be source of information, rather than simply a place to entertain one's self with argument, or practicing argumentation, for it's own sake.

 

[Diocletus]

A suspect of complicity in murder and rape is not only entitled to a lawyer: must also be arrested.
We don't have an option like a formal suspect of murder and rape who is walking free. From the moment she is formaly entitled to have a lawyer and is no longer a witness, she has to be jailed.

You miss the point.

Knox was charged with the crime of staging a crime scene. If the police are already telling her at the beginning of the interrogation that they have evidence against her because of the staging, then she is suspected of that crime. I don't care whether they have made a subjective determination that they should "formally" call her a suspect (i.e., provide her with a lawyer); they already believe her to be a suspect. Their failure to formally designate her as a suspect, when she clearly was a suspect in the alleged staging (at least), is further evidence of police deceit.

 

[Diocletus]

She claimed being hit twice at the back of the head and wrote nothing else.

Oh. Just two times. So how many times are Italian cops allowed to hit girls? 4? 7? 12?

As far as I'm concerned, once they've hit her, she bears no responsibility for any act or statement in police custody until such time as she has a lawyer.

PS: Love taps, I'm sure. Reminds me of this:

Love me one time
I could not speak
Love me one time, baby
Yeah, my knees got weak
But love me two times, girl
Last me all through the week
Love me two times
I'm goin' away

 

[Diocletus]

In order to prove coercion or false memory, I would demand evidence that the hand written note was not voluntary

Let's put aside the handwritten note for a moment.

If the 1:45 and 5:45 statements were the only evidence of callunnia, what would you think of a conviction based solely on these pieces of paper?

 

[Diocletus]

However, these same three people have been previously documented on numerous occasions as, uhhhhhh..... "stretching the truth".

Relax, man.

You've been documented as being bass-ackward-wrong about this whole case. But neither we nor Judge Hellmann will hold it against you. Except for an occasional giggle.

 

[Grinder]

Absolutely not. The judiciary wiretaps phone calls of all suspects. They can bring all these conversation in court as declaratory evidence.
But they cannot bring police interrogations. Interrogations are normally useless as evidence.

So she was a suspect and the interrogation had to be recorded by law and a lawyer present.

 

[zeb]

Relax, man.

You've been documented as being bass-ackward-wrong about this whole case. But neither we nor Judge Hellmann will hold it against you. Except for an occasional giggle.

 

[Kaosium]

I'd say forced statement.


I want to make very clear that these events seem more unreal to me that what I said before, that I stayed at Raffaele's house.

Who is the REAL murder? This is particularly important because I don't feel I can be used as condemning testimone in this instance.



No, she succeeded. The criminal cops and the criminal prosecutor OTOH failed to give a consistent account of the interrogation night and failed to give a sane version of what they think happened the night of the crime.

Why does nobody else notice that? We can spend pages on what Amanda said to Filomena about the door being locked, but have you ever actually read a cohesive account of the interrogation night and the arrest of the three of them, complete with the parade through town and 'case closed' to be concluded with the bilge Mattenini accepted on the eighth? Ever? From any Perugian porcine apologist?

Face it, Mach, you will not win, you already lost and it's over. Amanda is free, walking in the sun smiling, enjoying her family, friends and nature around Seattle.

Do you suppose the bunnies and kittens she comes across on her little hikes scamper away from the dread mistress?

While you're wasting your days and nights arguing delusions and proving only how right Festinger was.

Heh, adherents to this one and their ideological decedents are still around.

What you state is false and will always be.
I don't care and never cared about where Knox is. I may only care of who she is: she is a murderer. She will always be, and she will be shown to be, this will not change. This is the truth, and truth will never back down.

Is it 'sounding forth the trumpets that shall never sound retreat?'
I told you once, that's not your line!

So what if one or some of the twelve cops who abused her in that backroom confess? What if an international forensic agency gives the Polizia Scientifica the eternal 'screwed pooch award' or something for their work on this case? What if a 'Stefanoni' becomes slang for something so badly (or brilliantly...) bungled no one can discern if it was incompetence or corruption that produced it? What if Rudy actually comes clean? What if Mignini starts seeing hellfire and eternal damnation in his dreams and confesses? Will Thumper still flee from Bambi in fear then?

At any rate, do you really think Amanda was in that little room actually involved in the murder and managed to leave no trace whatsoever of her presence? I had gotten the impression that was your scenario for certain, did I misunderstand? There's no evidence of that whatsoever, and that little room having at least three and four if you want Raffaele there too means you're packing them in like sardines now. I did some checking around and I decided you were right to challenge me on what I'd read early in the case about Lalli, and found it was probably something juxtaposed with this following testimony as he never said anything like that.

However this came to my attention and I wonder if you'd care to comment on how the police had trouble working in the room with that many people, and how could you expect three or more to be involved in physical combat and one or two not only fail to leave any traces of themselves but not disturb any of Rudy's or Meredith's? This guy seems to be saying it's two square meters of open space, it looks like more to me, does he mean four square meters, say 3' X 4' in English measures? I assume he's talking about where the murder actually took place and not by the door, which they'd have to leave through without disturbing anything, which strike me as highly unlikely too considering their likely physical and emotional states.

This is Raffaele's lawyer questioning Bingini, one of the inspectors who worked the crime scene:

GB – Quanto è grande questa stanza? How big is that room?

MB – È piccola, che le devo dire? It is small, that I must say it?

GB – Quanti metri quadri sono secondo lei? How many meters square are there according to you?

MB – Sarà 2 metri quadri. It will be 2 meters square.

GB – Quanto? How much?

MB - 2 metri quadri, non lo so, adesso potrei dire… 2 meters square, I don’t know.

GB – In questi 2 metri quadri sostanzialmente c’è una porzione della stanza occupata da questo letto con doghe
giusto? In these 2 meters substantially, there is a portion of the room occupied by this bed with bed slats right?

MB – Sì, che è sulla parete. Yes, that is along the wall.

GB – Una porzione occupata da un armadio ed una scrivania. A portion taken up by an armoire and a desk?

MB – Una porzione che è occupata dall’armadio e scusi? A portion that is taken up by the armoire and excuse?

DOMANDA – Una porzione dalla scrivania. A portion by the desk.

MB – Ed una porzione dalla scrivania, sì rimane poco… Cioè in mezzo rimane poco spazio. And a portion by the desk, a little is left...That is in the middle little space is left.

GB – In mezzo che rimane… Ecco, questa è la mia domanda, in mezzo quanto spazio rimane? What is left in the middle...Look, this is my question, in the middle how much space is left?

MB – Rimane poco spazio, cioè se lei mette in mezzo tre persone in piedi sono vicine tutte e tre. Little space is left, that is if you put three people afoot in the middle, all three are close.

GB – Esatto. Queste tre persone in piedi stavano peraltro attente a non schiacciare la macchia di sangue che c’era sul pavimento? Exactly. These three people afoot are moreover careful to not tramp on the blood stain that was on the floor?

MB – Sì, cercavamo di calpestare il meno possibile, ecco perché non ci siamo mossi all’interno della stanza. Yes, we tried to tread upon as little as possible, here’s why we moved around inside of the room.

GB – Quindi c’era una particolare precauzione a stare attenti a ciò che si calpestava? Then there was a particular precauton to be careful to that which could be tread upon?

MB Una certa precauzione, certo, certamente, cioè perlomeno dove erano le macchie ematiche, io questo
dico, perlomeno dove era il grosso delle macchie

ematiche che si cercava di non calpestare. A certain precaution, sure, certainly, that is at least where there were blood stains, I saw this, at least where large blood stains were, that care was taken not to tread upon them.

 

[Kaosium]

WOW

So three people say there was no cartwheel.
Edda, Amanda, and Bruce Fisher/Fischer

However, these same three people have been previously documented on numerous occasions as, uhhhhhh..... "stretching the truth".

One of the three's 'best truths they can remember' even prompted her own*lead* Defense Attorney to say he had difficulty finding truth.
This because because she already had told him 3 very differing versions.

That is what is sick and pathetic about all 3 of the individuals you cite.

Color me unimpressed.
Almost as unimpressed as if you had "spoken to an Italian lawyer" and proffer that to us as some sort of simpleton badge of credibility for an argument.

Pilot, why would she lie about a cartwheel? Where do you suppose the others got the information, if not from her? Incidentally the police prosecution haven't just 'stretched' the truth, they made a circus tent out of it! That's the only 'evidence' that exists of the legendary 'cartwheel,' and they had cameras on them in that lobby waiting room, right? So why didn't they produce film of this historic occasion so crucial to their case? They made a big enough deal out of it when they wanted to talk about anything but what they were doing with Raffaele and Amanda for seven hours, their description of those events might have filled fifteen minutes.