Continuation Part 3 - Discussion of the Amanda Knox case

[Bill Williams]

Since she wasn't there, by the 7th note, she can't say more than that. She can't say, to this day can't, that Patrick didn't do it.

Those that expected her to say that Patrick was innocent have always missed the point that she had been told by the police that they had evidence of his involvement and since she wasn't there how could she know he wasn't?

How would you have worded it?

First and foremost, AK should have lawyered up. Sometimes people criticize the other flatmates for so doing seeing "lawyering up" as a sign of something sinister lurking in the weeds.

Truth is, AK should have lawyered up. The issue is not how I would have worded it - I fully concede that if I had been there enduring what AK endured I would have made the same mistakes: except that I would have lawyered up.

Being a vulnerable 20-year old from a foreign country is, excuse me for saying it, not an excuse as much as that is true.

A lawyer would not have allowed AK to write this: "I stand by my statements that I made last night about events that could have taken place in my home with Patrik, but 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."

In 20/20 hindsight both you and I know what's going on here, but at the time this is equivocating and unclear.

Even Amanda gives them ammunition to distrust her words: I'm very confused at this time. My head is full of contrasting ideas and I know I can be frustrating to work with for this reason. But I also want to tell the truth as best I can. Everything I have said in regards to my involvement in Meredith's death, even though it is contrasting, are the best truth that I have been able to think." (Underlining is done by me for emphasis, not part of the original.)

Amanda is saying everything, not just the one thing that innocenters say is the reality (only knowable in 20/20 hindsight).

So how would I have worded it? Knowing what I know now with my own 20/20 hindsight I would have clammed up and not said a thing. Her explanations in the Nov 6th and 7th missives only confused matters all the more.

She needed a lawyer to guide her through this.

It's the reason why I say she's convictable but not sentencable. I bow to others who know Italian law better than I (I know nothing about Italian law!), but if it were my court and my rules, I'd convict her to make a statement, but not sentence her because of all the stuff that garden variety innocenters bring to this debate.

I agree that AK is a victim of her own innocence. I can't remember who wrote it, but innocent people mistakenly believe that their innocence is a shield. That reasonable people will somehow be able to intuit it. Amanda was naively trying to be helpful and it backfired in the worst way imaginable.

It's not guilty people who need lawyers, it's the innocent ones.

But the law is the law is the law, and needs to be administered evenly - naivety is not an excuse.

 

[pilot padron]

Oh Dear, Yet Again

Pilot, I think it's great that you feel the "need" to put "quotes" around so many "words" in your "statements" and "arguments" so that "everyone" can "understand" the "correct" "facts" in "future" arguments on the "topic."

Yes, indeed.
Over the years, I have also been told I use too many emoticons, too many "big" words, too many parentheses, not enough hyphens, not enough quotes when repeating what others say, too many spaces between question marks ? ?, ad nauseam on and on.
But you get the drift.

Unless you were here under another name, or had a 'close friend' here reporting to you, you may not be aware of those *facts* from the past.
Therefore, for your benefit, I suggest.

This can be easily "documented" not because I said it, but because you can search here and find every one of these ever so helpful criticisms of me that are ever so directly related to the facts of the case.

Since everyone except both of us arguing guilt is always understood perfectly, and never commits any of these ever so grave offenses that you find necessary to cite.....

Please do "accept", "therefore", "that" I am "somewhat" "underwhelmed" "with that argument". (again)

 

[smkovalinksy]

I agree that AK is a victim of her own innocence. I can't remember who wrote it, but innocent people mistakenly believe that their innocence is a shield. That reasonable people will somehow be able to intuit it. Amanda was naively trying to be helpful and it backfired in the worst way imaginable.
It's not guilty people who need lawyers, it's the innocent ones.

But the law is the law is the law, and needs to be administered evenly - naivety is not an excuse.

This is what I was trying to convey yesterday. You have hit the nail on the head; very astute observation. Believing that others will somehow "just know" that we are good and innocent is a trait shared by many passive, "artistic" types. Big mistake...BIG mistake....

 

[Chris_Halkides]

I'm shocked, shocked

pilot padron,

That you did not fact-check the supposed Humphrey Bogart quote even though doing so would have not been that difficult calls into question every single post you have made here. Were the words you wrongfully attributed him just the best truth that you could remember?

 

[Kaosium]

_______________________

Rose,

It's inspirational to see grade school children write a Wikipedia article.

///

Belly laugh of the day!

 

[TruthCalls]

-snip-
In 20/20 hindsight both you and I know what's going on here, but at the time this is equivocating and unclear.

-snip-
Amanda is saying everything, not just the one thing that innocenters say is the reality (only knowable in 20/20 hindsight).

I agree that AK is a victim of her own innocence. I can't remember who wrote it, but innocent people mistakenly believe that their innocence is a shield. That reasonable people will somehow be able to intuit it. Amanda was naively trying to be helpful and it backfired in the worst way imaginable.

It's not guilty people who need lawyers, it's the innocent ones.

But the law is the law is the law, and needs to be administered evenly - naivety is not an excuse.

Bill, a criminal court is not ruling on "point in time" interpretation, but rather, what can now be concluded with the benefit of hindsight. As John and Raz have articulated (rather well, I might add), Amanda's comments evolved from a confused individual, agreeing with the police but making it clear her mind is confused to someone who's mind has cleared, and is sure she was not there, and as such, can not provide evidence for or against Lumumba.

While you're free to critique her choice of wording, her intentions are very clear in both of her writings. Combined with the hindsight of how the interrogation was handled, what the police told her, etc., it's clear to me that if anyone should be held accountable for what happened to Lumumba, it was the police. Amanda's writings make it clear her testimony was not anywhere near sufficient for Lumumba to be arrested and jailed. The police are guilty of both implanting the suggestion into Amanda's head and then acting on insufficient evidence.

 

[pilot padron]

Thanks, Doc

pilot padron,

That you did not fact-check the supposed Humphrey Bogart quote even though doing so would have not been that difficult calls into question every single post you have made here. Were the words you wrongfully attributed him just the best truth that you could remember?

I yield with alacrity to your always impeccable, superior, PhD honed, and readily attested research abilities.
I was indeed wrong.
In fact that was said by several others, including a Woody Allen Play and a computer game
But yes, by Bogart's co star, Ingrid Bergman.

May I politely inquire if in a PhD dissertation would the faculty advisor accept this slightly shortened statement from a potential Doctoral candidate?
"...that you did not fact-check the supposed Humphrey Bogart quote even though doing so would have not been that difficult calls into question every single post you have made here."
To a mere single graduate degree holder, that does seem a bit like a waaaay over the top generalization unacceptable for scholarly pursuits.
All 500+ posts of mine ??
Eh ? ? Really ? ?

Your sharp witty "best truth" conclusion is as always enjoyed.
Albeit, only with greatest trepidation do I use quotes to tell you so.

 

[Bill Williams]

Bill, a criminal court is not ruling on "point in time" interpretation, but rather, what can now be concluded with the benefit of hindsight. As John and Raz have articulated (rather well, I might add), Amanda's comments evolved from a confused individual, agreeing with the police but making it clear her mind is confused to someone who's mind has cleared, and is sure she was not there, and as such, can not provide evidence for or against Lumumba.

While you're free to critique her choice of wording, her intentions are very clear in both of her writings. Combined with the hindsight of how the interrogation was handled, what the police told her, etc., it's clear to me that if anyone should be held accountable for what happened to Lumumba, it was the police. Amanda's writings make it clear her testimony was not anywhere near sufficient for Lumumba to be arrested and jailed. The police are guilty of both implanting the suggestion into Amanda's head and then acting on insufficient evidence.

Strangely, you are now making my point. You are asking the court to make a "point in time" ruling, namely the 4th memorandum being the "true" one, the one that reflects Amanda's "real" intentions.

Taken as a whole - AK unfortunately and tragically for her gives a very confused picture here. Yes, I agree, the overall 20/20 hindsight context of the interrogation and such means that....

She is convictable but not sentencable. I think people who respond to my posts miss that I am saying that.

In short, naivety is not an excuse before the law. Whether from confusion or stress, AK fudges at the wrong times, and really needed a lawyer to advise her on the implications of those fudges.

My bet is that this is the way Hellmann sees it in his motivations report.

 

[LondonJohn]

Yet, strangely, this was the one conviction upheld at appeal. What is it that not one, but two judges and panels are seeing here that those vigourously arguing the other way are not seeing?

Well, that's what I find intriguing and puzzling. I have long been of the objective, dispassionate opinion that Knox should be acquitted of every single charge related to this case. I believe that it's highly likely that she was unlawfully coerced by the police into making her confused "accusation/confession" statements on the 5th/6th, that she was indeed very likely hit by a police officer in the course of these interrogations, and that she had nothing whatsoever to do with the murder of Meredith Kercher. I have also long said that the only prosecution related to this case that appears to have any merit is that related to the Sollecito family's alleged leaking of the crime scene video to the Telenorba TV station. I think that this may well end in justified convictions if the case is ever taken to its conclusion (however, given the unjust period of incarceration imposed upon Sollecito, and the indirect pain and hardship this has caused his family, it might be that this prosecution is dropped or kept on file anyhow).

With all that in mind, I find it hard to see how Hellmann's court came to pronounce guilt on the Lumumba slander charge. I can easily see how Massei's flawed court found for guilt, but I can't see how Hellmann's court did not modify this verdict also. I suspect that there are two main reasons for what I see as a gross anomaly: first, I strongly suspect that Knox's defence team spent very little time arguing on the Lumumba slander charge in the appeal. I suspect that Dalla Vedova, Ghirga and Del Grosso were overwhelmingly focused on acquittals on the murder charge (and those charges directly associated with the murder act). This may have been deliberate and considered - Knox's defence team might have decided that they did not want to risk diluting or distracting from the most important issue, the murder charge. However, I tend to be of the opinion that it was an unintentional mistake from Knox's defence team. I think they should have spent time arguing the case for acquittal on the Lumumba slander charge, given that a) this was an appeal trial, and b) the judicial panel was being headed by two professional judges who should have been able to compartmentalise the arguments on the various charges.

Secondly, I think that Hellmann's court may have been unduly swayed by the rather obvious fact that Knox did, indeed, make an accusation of murder against Lumumba which turned out to be false. I think it's possible that the court didn't pay enough attention to the mens rea aspect behind this charge, possibly because mens rea rarely plays a part in false accusations (i.e. most people make them of their own free will, and if that's the case then they are almost by definition malicious). Contrast this, for example, with a fatal road traffic collision between a car and a pedestrian, where courts are accustomed to having to assess whether the car driver either a) deliberately hit the pedestrian, b) hit the pedestrian through careless driving or other negligence, or c) was totally blameless for hitting the pedestrian (e.g. the pedestrian ran out from behind a parked car right in front of the moving vehicle). In such RTC cases, if the court finds that (c) occurred, then even though the driver caused the death of the pedestrian with his motor vehicle, there is no mens rea and no crime has been committed by the driver.

So, in summary, I think that Knox's defence team was at fault for neglecting to argue sufficiently on the Lumumba slander charge in front of Hellmann's appeal court, and I think that Hellmann's court may have been faulty in failing to recognise that they needed to establish the requisite mens rea in order to find that Knox's accusation of Lumumba was indeed a criminal act on her part. I think that this charge is eminently appealable by Knox's team (if that's what she wants), and I think that she might very well be acquitted if it was retried as a stand-alone charge.

 

[pilot padron]

Oh Dear, another attempt at sarcasm, I guess

A fine assessment Pilot. You really help add clarity as well with your helpful underlining. Much appreciated.

And the Casa Blanca reference? Priceless. You are a peach Pilot. A real peach.

Since you critique my supposed lack of absolute accuracy......... ( I guess)

Under the admitted category of a pedantic "peach"

Would it be impolite to note...........

Where/what/Who is Casa Blanca ? ?

ETA:
Please also be advised that since you failed to fact check a 5th grade geography correct location, , please be advised that according to recent logic proposed by halides1... "every single one" of all 1,000+ of your posts are now "called into question".
Not very 'peachy', IMHO
(quotes used to show direct statement of another; hope acceptable)

 

[LondonJohn]

In other words....Lets play Dr Phil (again) and try to spin this to show innocence (again)

Ah yes...... Dr Phil!

You should tell your friend Stint7 to tell his friend Bard to tell her friend santamariaxx that I was greatly amused by her embarrassingly earnest attempts to engage on twitter with someone she thought was the real Dr Phil (but whose twitter name is the easy-to-spot-as-fraudulent "Doktor_FiLL"). It was almost as amusing as her casual demolition by Deborah Orr, or her lapdog-like fawning over BBC correspondent Daniel Sandford

 

[js202]

pilot padron,

That you did not fact-check the supposed Humphrey Bogart quote even though doing so would have not been that difficult calls into question every single post you have made here. Were the words you wrongfully attributed him just the best truth that you could remember?

Just curious, halides1, even with all your high-fangled "education," when was the last time you, genuinely and truly, "trepidated?" Such "sensitivity" is not all that "common," you know...

 

[RoseMontague]

Since you critique my supposed lack of absolute accuracy......... ( I guess)

Under the admitted category of a pedantic "peach"

Would it be impolite to note...........

Where/what/Who is Casa Blanca ? ?

ETA:
Please also be advised that since you failed to fact check a 5th grade geography correct location, , please be advised that according to recent logic proposed by halides1... "every single one" of all 1,000+ of your posts are now "called into question".
Not very 'peachy', IMHO
(quotes used to show direct statement of another; hope acceptable)

The movie is actually one word Casablanca. Could be in Spain or at one time Portugal or it could be at 1600 Pennsylvania Ave, one cute story has it that the Germans were confused and thought the secret meeting was at the White House.

 

[HumanityBlues]

Since you critique my supposed lack of absolute accuracy......... ( I guess)

Under the admitted category of a pedantic "peach"

Would it be impolite to note...........

Where/what/Who is Casa Blanca ? ?

ETA:
Please also be advised that since you failed to fact check a 5th grade geography correct location, , please be advised that according to recent logic proposed by halides1... "every single one" of all 1,000+ of your posts are now "called into question".
Not very 'peachy', IMHO
(quotes used to show direct statement of another; hope acceptable)

Dearest Pilot, please do not take the following in jest as I mean the following with the utmost sincerity.

I have no idea what you are talking about dear.

 

[LondonJohn]

Since you critique my supposed lack of absolute accuracy......... ( I guess)

Under the admitted category of a pedantic "peach"

Would it be impolite to note...........

Where/what/Who is Casa Blanca ? ?
ETA:
Please also be advised that since you failed to fact check a 5th grade geography correct location, , please be advised that according to recent logic proposed by halides1... "every single one" of all 1,000+ of your posts are now "called into question".
Not very 'peachy', IMHO
(quotes used to show direct statement of another; hope acceptable)

Es la casa del Presidente Obama

Anyway, back to the original issue...... what do you find so "priceless" about that one line from Knox?

"Everything I have said in regards to my involvement in Meredith's death, even though it is contrasting, are the best truth that I have been able to think."

It makes sense to me, but maybe you'd be kind enough to point out exactly what you find so incredible or Oscar-worthy about it.

(Oh, and just FYI, you got the other quote wrong as well: "don't give a damn", not "do not give a damn". Incidentally, powerful producer David O Selznick got the Hollywood Production Code modified to contain a loophole allowing the use of the word "damn" if it was "in a historical context", otherwise the studio would have been either heavily fined or forced to edit out the line.)

 

[pilot padron]

Try reading what Rose wrote just above you

Dearest Pilot, please do not take the following in jest as I mean the following with the utmost sincerity.

I have no idea what you are talking about dear.

Her arguments are always 'peachy' to you.

If that fails, find Casa Blanca in any geography book.
When you do show it to Dr Halkides so he does not have to "call into question each and every post of yours", Dear.

 

[Didaktylos]

...
(Oh, and just FYI, you got the other quote wrong as well: "don't give a damn", not "do not give a damn". Incidentally, powerful producer David O Selznick got the Hollywood Production Code modified to contain a loophole allowing the use of the word "damn" if it was "in a historical context", otherwise the studio would have been either heavily fined or forced to edit out the line.)

Also as spoken by Gable the line was "... don't give a damn" rather than "... don't give a damn".

 

[HumanityBlues]

Her arguments are always 'peachy' to you.

If that fails, find Casa Blanca in any geography book.
When you do show it to Dr Halkides so he does not have to "call into question each and every post of yours", Dear.

Dearest Pilot, you'll forgive me if my misspelling of an insignificant geographical location is as offensive as your endearingly horrible punctuation. You're as cute as a button even when throwing stones.

 

[Moss]

Methinks the thread has run its course.

 

[bookworm]

deleted - question answered in later post.