I know that you consider the fact that AK was ultimately convicted for calumnia to be the final word, so to speak, re the issue of her being a "convicted liar", and that logic I follow, although it is interesting that for that one point of the Hellmann judgment the underlying logic is to be disregarded. Be that as it may, what I find particulary confusing is your comment that you have made a couple times - bolded above - to the effect that you don't want to reveal your list of lies as sought by Bill Williams because it is "sensitive" and not to be revealed "to the enemy" camp.
This I don't understand. How can a discussion of this list of lies, this stockpile of lies, be sensitive to the point of impacting the current proceedings? I thought we are in a true (in the US sense) appellate proceeding where issues of review by the court are legal, as opposed to factual. Or is it that you are so confident the trial will be remanded for further proceedings at a trial level that new matters of fact can be considered? But here again, I didn't think even in that eventuality of return to the trial court, that the court would be re-opening matters of fact.
With this said, how can your revealing your list of LOA (lies of Amanda) or Raffaele be something you would not discuss? Why should this not be considered evading the LOA issue? In this regard, is it you that has this information? Not the prosecution? I understand you say you are not one and the same as various prosecution players. That is a point of confusion for me as well. I am not interested in outing anyone, and as you may know I am just happy to have your input as someone very "close to the action", whatever that might be.
A final comment is that even if there is some tactical logic to withholding information, to me it strikes at the very essence of a "fair trial". Why on earth, if one is in search of the truth as you claim, would you not want a full ferreting out of these supposed LOA? And what system would tolerate that? I suspect that the answer is that the do not tolerate it, or at least should not if the system of justice there is played fairly. Thanks for your response.
Thank you for this moije2.... this is what I meant to say.
I read a bit of Nina Burleigh's book. Nina is not shy about catching Amanda or Raffaele in a lie or two, in her accounting of the pre Nov 5/6 period. One awkward lie Burleigh says Amanda told, that I do not remember Candace Dempsey relating, is about her own marijuana use when asked by police.
To be blunt, Burleigh really does make Knox sound like a dumb, fish-out-of-water, in-shock-at-the-death-of-her-friend, and doesn't really pull any punches in the implied "character" of the girl. A 20-year old who badly, badly needed a lawyer, and was awkward in ALL she did.
Burleigh makes Knox seem full value for the raised eyebrows of the English girls, who themselves must have been looking at everything through shock as well. This was not normal for ANYONE.
But Knox was very definitely the behavioural ugly-duckling of the bunch.
Burleigh also relates the interrogation more briefly than does Dempsey, although there are some gems in Nina's.
Burleigh makes it seem all the more incredulous that the cops would go off quickly and grab Lumumba, declare case closed, all over the confused ramblings of an obviously awkwardly grief-stricken, exhausted, fish out of water like Knox. On Nov 5/6 over night, why would anyone have believed ANYTHING she'd said?
And, no, I am not accusing her of lying.
If you want to simulate what she (and all the girls plus Raffaele) went through, next time someone close to you dies tragically, do not sleep for the next 84 hours. Then let ME come and question you about your loved one's death.
I'll have you crying, slapped your head, and blaming someone else for the death in no time.
Takers?
