Kaosium
Philosopher
- Joined
- Oct 12, 2010
- Messages
- 6,695
It was reading that note that caused me to realize she was probably innocent. What in it makes her sound guilty to you? Are you aware of the context of the note?
-
Security incident: ISF was recently accessed by intruders. Please change your password, and change it anywhere else you used it. Read more
Continuation Part 5: Discussion of the Amanda Knox/Raffaele Sollecito case
- Thread starter Cuddles
- Start date
- Status
It was reading that note that caused me to realize she was probably innocent. What in it makes her sound guilty to you? Are you aware of the context of the note?
anglolawyer
Banned
You don't follow your own logic on the lamp. We agree it's a key piece of evidence. Given that, where was Mignini's positive case on the lamp? Do you know what I mean by that? All he did was lob a question at Amanda, suggesting Raffaele tried to retrieve it by breaking down the door, and stick it in the cartoon. Where is the positive evidence about it? Forensic evidence, say, or witness testimony from Luca Altieri and/or Battisteli that they had to step over it to get in? If Amanda had elected not to give evidence, how was Mig planning to get this lethal point into the case? If you plug something into the wall, you might leave a nice, fresh print, or maybe some DNA, on the plug. I am unaware of any tests on the lamp. Was the lamp even collected and bagged? Er, no.Dr Tesla said:
This is an inadequate reason for not citing (and it was not me who asked you to cite btw.). You will not be asked to cite everything, just things that folks here, just as, if not more, knowledgeable than you, don't recognise. Have your laughs by all means but please debate reasonably.Dr Tesla said:
One jury found him reliable and the other didn't. The question is what you make of his testimony in light of your own crime theory which is inconsistent with it. You say they left at about 9.45 and showed up about 10. I assume they picked up Rudy on the way. Reading her book I am not sure one has to pass through Toto's piazza to get to the apartment but even if they did, his evidence is not that he saw them pass through but that they hung around for a couple of hours looking in that direction. On your theory, he must be wrong and the (better educated and more intelligent) Hellman jury right. Agreed? If not, why not?Dr Tesla said:
ETA did you check yet to see what time Meredith got home? You are a whole hour out, which is pretty amazing for a debating maestro. Do you need a cite? Would you accept 'google it' as a reasonable response if you did?
ETA (again) take a leaf out of yimyammer's book and say 'I don't know' when asked a question you can't answer rather than ignoring it. Once more, this is not the way of a debating genius. Here's the implied question I asked above: do you accept that Amanda's trial evidence, taken as a whole, is to the effect that the cops had some responsibility for naming Patrick? If yes, we can debate how much. If not, why not?
Last edited:
dude? that note made you think she was innocent? what about the note gave you that impression?
I think the fact that it is so evasive and she tries to have it both ways in accusing her boss while acting like she's not really doing that b/c she's "confused". I knew if I was confused I wouldn't go around accusing people of murder, i'd probably wait until I was certain about the facts. LOL
only one jury actually heard him speak and give his testimony. that one found him reliable. the hellman verdict was thrown out so it's foolish for you to keep citing it like it means anything. the scope of that trial was found not to be legal by the supreme court and it appears most of the trial evidence was not even considered by that jury.
Hellman isn't well respected over there and his jury got slapped down hard. I don't think he had any experience in criminal cases like this. his verdict got thrown out, which has to be embarrassing for him.
the hobo testified that he saw them at one point in the evening, and then he saw them later. the testimony wasn't that he saw them there for 4-5 hours straight. given the fact he saw they were having an animated discussion about something at one point and kept going over to look down at the house, it fits with the scenario that they murdered the victim and were watching the house to see if any police came b/c the victim had screamed out and they probably were scared the screams were reported to the police.
I don't need any lectures from you on anything. I know you Brits think you are the bee knees but you come across as real haughty.
the cops simply asked the stupid girl about the text to Patrick. that does not imply they thought Patrick commited the murder and were hellbent on her naming him as the killer. YOu have to be brain dead to believe such a thing. they had no clue who he was. they simply asked, why did you text this guy "see you later", which seems like a reasonable question to ask the roommate of the murder victim whose "boyfriend" had just stop giving her an alibi.
I already reported the victim got back around 9 or so, which is earlier than I thought. the last computer usage at raff's house was 9.10 or so so it seems real improbable that meridith was dead by 9.30 as one of your clones asserted on here. the witness said he saw them around 9.45 or so in the park, the first time that night. plus two witnesses nearby heard screams in the 11 o'clock hour and footsteps running up some steps so she was most likely still alive at that point unless you want to believe some other woman was screaming out like she was being stabbed on the same night in the same area.
the lamp thing was submitted to the jury as evidence. there's no way it wasn't b/c it is obviously compelling evidence, something even a Friend of Amanda like you has admitted. you guys act like those sentencing reports cover every detail but they clearly leave out some things and in Knox's case the lamp isn't necessary for a conviction.
Last edited:
Charlie Wilkes
Illuminator
- Joined
- Dec 8, 2009
- Messages
- 4,177
OK, so he steps across the threshold with his left foot, pulls his right foot across the threshold, turns the key while standing roughly parallel to the door, and continues on to the exit, pausing in the kitchen where he leaves a cluster of attenuated shoe prints that are just a few inches apart.
At least, that is one possibility.
I don't get the controversy here. Is the guilter premise that he would have had to turn around and fumble with the key after he closed the door? Maybe, maybe not... certainly not if he went through the keys to find the right one before he pulled the door shut, as you suggest.
Kaosium
Philosopher
- Joined
- Oct 12, 2010
- Messages
- 6,695
Because I realized what had happened to her, to put it in simplest terms they gaslit her.
Amanda was an honor student, she spoke several languages. Those 'witness' statements are demented drivel, it's unbelievable to me that the police would arrest someone on the basis of a 'witness' who wasn't even sure what she 'saw' and didn't even sound coherent. That note explains what happened, they pushed her beyond her mental endurance and convinced her (temporarily) they must be correct and she was at the scene, but it didn't happen and that note is her working out what did and did not make sense to her.
More technically it was a mild form of an internalized false confession.
dude, she can hardly write English well. Do you read her written declaration? My 8th grade grammar teacher would be embarrassed by that. She comes across as a little girl in that statement.
yeah, the police broke this babe after 2 whole hours of questioning. get real. no guy could get away with such a diva act as this. she's exploited her gender so much here.
she's falsely claimed that it was Mignini asking her the questions when she first accused the boss but he was only in there when she offered to give the written declaration.
it wasn't a false confession. She didn't admit to the murder, only being at the cottage while the murder took place. It was a false accusation, of her boss, which she never retracted even as he sat in prison for 14 days.
Last edited:
why didn't Raff falsely accuse somebody of the murder? they questioned him too and if their tactic was to name somebody and force you to accuse that person, surely they tried it on him. they actually asked him to come to the police station, not Knox, she tagged along with him, and she wasn't a suspect, just a witness, when they first started talking to her. they got only interested in her when the "boyfriend" said he had told the a pack of lies and recanted his alibi for Knox.
the other roommates were questioned, as was Patrick, and no doubt other people. only person to falsely accuse somebody of murder was Knox, and surprise surprise, she's one of the two with no alibi and evidence pointing to her being at the house. this false confession thing is so nutty.
the other roommates were questioned, as was Patrick, and no doubt other people. only person to falsely accuse somebody of murder was Knox, and surprise surprise, she's one of the two with no alibi and evidence pointing to her being at the house. this false confession thing is so nutty.
Last edited:
Charlie Wilkes
Illuminator
- Joined
- Dec 8, 2009
- Messages
- 4,177
If she had been there, and she was willing to admit it, she'd have rolled on Guede in a heartbeat. She had everything to gain by saying, "I was there but Guede did it." She had nothing to gain by roping Lumumba into the plot.
You should take a look at the Angie Dodge case in Idaho. Chris Tapp is doing 40 years for rape/murder. The cops badgered him until he confessed. All he would have had to do to keep himself out of prison was name the guy whose DNA was found a the crime scene, his "accomplice." He had a formal agreement to that effect with the prosecutor.
He couldn't come up with the name. He accused other guys, but... no DNA match, no cigar. And in that case, the real killer was never caught.
This is what happens when the police expect a suspect to solve the crime, because they're too dumb to solve it themselves. Fortunately the knuckle-draggers in Perugia had the assistance of more competent investigators from Rome.
accusing Guede would actually be evidence that she was there. I think she accused the only other black man she knew b/c she knew they would find evidence a black man was involved or she simply wanted to get them thinking about a black man. she knew that if gu-ede knew that she and /or raff was accusing him, he would start accusing those two and he could make a credible account if just told the truth about them. it's the same reason g-uede did not originally implicate those two, b/c to do so is an admission you were involved with them. this is game theory being played out in real subtle terms here.
yeah in your world, everybody is out to get poor victim Amanda Knox. she's that important. everybody wants to have sex with her too.
Last edited:
Kevin_Lowe
Unregistered
- Joined
- Feb 10, 2003
- Messages
- 12,221
DrTesla's Gish gallop really is a non-stop playlist of blasts from the past.
It's been ages since I've seen someone try to argue that there's no such thing as an internalised false statement, on the basis that such statements are usually confessions and hence are usually referred to as internalised false confessions.
There's an interesting sociological element to the evolution and propagation of these pro-guilt memes. A major plank of the pro-guilt story fell over when the JREF community did the legwork to establish that Amanda's false statement had many of the characteristics associated with internalised false statements, and was elicited by exactly the discredited and dangerous interrogation methods known to produce such internalised false statements. The pro-guilt community needed some talking point to respond to this so they could retain their belief in the evidentiary importance of Amanda's statement, but the best they could come up with was this purely semantic quibble. But since it's the best they've got it has been taken up and copied slavishly by the pro-guilt community and now they all quibble the same quibble.
It's illustrative of the difference between the rationalist and anti-rationalist world views. The rationalist abandons a belief when the evidence turns against it. The anti-rationalist makes up some new, ancillary belief to protect the threatened belief and goes on with their beliefs essentially unchanged by the evidence.
It's been ages since I've seen someone try to argue that there's no such thing as an internalised false statement, on the basis that such statements are usually confessions and hence are usually referred to as internalised false confessions.
There's an interesting sociological element to the evolution and propagation of these pro-guilt memes. A major plank of the pro-guilt story fell over when the JREF community did the legwork to establish that Amanda's false statement had many of the characteristics associated with internalised false statements, and was elicited by exactly the discredited and dangerous interrogation methods known to produce such internalised false statements. The pro-guilt community needed some talking point to respond to this so they could retain their belief in the evidentiary importance of Amanda's statement, but the best they could come up with was this purely semantic quibble. But since it's the best they've got it has been taken up and copied slavishly by the pro-guilt community and now they all quibble the same quibble.
It's illustrative of the difference between the rationalist and anti-rationalist world views. The rationalist abandons a belief when the evidence turns against it. The anti-rationalist makes up some new, ancillary belief to protect the threatened belief and goes on with their beliefs essentially unchanged by the evidence.
Charlie Wilkes
Illuminator
- Joined
- Dec 8, 2009
- Messages
- 4,177
Over reliance on confessions
Brief synopsis of the Norfolk Four case (with apologies to those who have seen this before):
Suspect 1 (Danial Williams) confessed, naming no accomplices. But the crime scene DNA didn't match Williams.
Suspect 2 (Joseph Dick) confessed, naming Williams as his accomplice. But the crime scene DNA didn't match Dick.
Suspect 3 (Eric Wilson) confessed, naming Williams and Dick as his accomplices. But the crime scene DNA didn't match Wilson.
Suspect 4 (Derek Tice) confessed, naming Williams, Dick, and Wilson as his accomplices. But the crime scene DNA didn't match Tice.
Eventually, the guy who did it, who was in prison for something else, told someone who passed it on to the police. His DNA matched the crime scene samples.
Naturally, the authorities mounted a full-court press to convict all their suspects, because to do otherwise would be to admit they made a mistake. And that is one thing they will not do.
Brief synopsis of the Norfolk Four case (with apologies to those who have seen this before):
Suspect 1 (Danial Williams) confessed, naming no accomplices. But the crime scene DNA didn't match Williams.
Suspect 2 (Joseph Dick) confessed, naming Williams as his accomplice. But the crime scene DNA didn't match Dick.
Suspect 3 (Eric Wilson) confessed, naming Williams and Dick as his accomplices. But the crime scene DNA didn't match Wilson.
Suspect 4 (Derek Tice) confessed, naming Williams, Dick, and Wilson as his accomplices. But the crime scene DNA didn't match Tice.
Eventually, the guy who did it, who was in prison for something else, told someone who passed it on to the police. His DNA matched the crime scene samples.
Naturally, the authorities mounted a full-court press to convict all their suspects, because to do otherwise would be to admit they made a mistake. And that is one thing they will not do.
I love all the bubble gum pyschologists on the internet like you. you guys make the world go round. you are comedy gold.
it's much more likely Knox is full of crap and lying her butt off when the police confronted her with the fact her "boyfriend" wasn't covering for her anymore and she wanted to confuse their investigation. most people have enough honor that they won't accuse somebody of murder after a few hours of questioning by the police.
You self described rationalists think Rudy broke into the house from the high window like Spiderman despite it being a big hassle for him to do that all within sight of the main road and no evidence of anybody coming in that way. he then came in , ransacked one roommates' clothing for reasons we will never know, took a dump on the toilet, then got around to holding down Meridith with no fight from her, sexualy assaulted her, and cutting her with two different knives.
Last edited:
speaking of cases, there was a case in America a long time ago where this woman was lured by her roommate into a room to be raped by some guys and then she was killed. lot of similiarities to what happened in the Knox thing, it was about one girl wanting payback on the other due to some jealousy and resentment. these young girls really go at sometimes, and with a cold psychopath like Knox, that can lead to violent outcomes.
I've read a lot of columns in which people advance this silly premise that only reason people think Knox is guilty is b/c she was a sexually active female, but the reality is that the only reason people think she is innocent is they don't want to believe that a young fairly attractive female could have butchered her roommate in such a heinous act. If Knox was a guy and all the other evidence was the same, he would have been convicted a long time ago and there would be no controversy.
if it all it takes to beat a murder rap is to accuse the police of misconduct and demonize the prosecuter, you might as well just do away with the justice system. everybody is going to get in on that.
if it all it takes to beat a murder rap is to accuse the police of misconduct and demonize the prosecuter, you might as well just do away with the justice system. everybody is going to get in on that.
Last edited:
Kaosium
Philosopher
- Joined
- Oct 12, 2010
- Messages
- 6,695
Precisely my point.
Does it really make sense to you that the police just did as the demoness diva proclaimed, even though it came across as demented drivel? 53 out of 89 hours she spent with police, she wasn't sleeping well, she was traumatized from having her roommate killed yards away from where she slept. She went to the police station with Raffaele because she was afraid to be alone. They took her into a little room and told her Raffaele had dropped her alibi and she wasn't there, that the police had 'hard evidence' she was at the scene, and she'd blocked it due to trauma and she'd better remember and tell them or they'd put her away for 30 years and she'd never see her mother again. They eventually managed to convince her that when she thought of Patrick it was a 'memory' and then pieced together an incoherent narrative from those 'flashes' of memory.
Mignini wasn't there for the first statement, (1:45 AM) after that, and in violation of Italian law, he led her through a questioning session and tried to piece together a narrative which became the 5:45 AM statement. He'd claim it was 'spontaneous' and he was just a notary. He's lying and the fact there's no video of what happened in that room that night despite the fact they'd tapped their phones, taped the previous witness statements, taped their conversations when they didn't know they were being taped and taped just about all of the other statements indicates there was something very rotten in the state of Umbria that night.
Which is lots easier to fool someone about if you think about it.
That's not true, and you've posted the first retraction about twice now. Then she did it again the next day, then the day after wrote her lawyers with it. You're just parroting lies now.
Precisely my point.
Does it really make sense to you that the police just did as the demoness diva proclaimed, even though it came across as demented drivel? 53 out of 89 hours she spent with police, she wasn't sleeping well, she was traumatized from having her roommate killed yards away from where she slept. She went to the police station with Raffaele because she was afraid to be alone. They took her into a little room and told her Raffaele had dropped her alibi and she wasn't there, that the police had 'hard evidence' she was at the scene, and she'd blocked it due to trauma and she'd better remember and tell them or they'd put her away for 30 years and she'd never see her mother again. They eventually managed to convince her that when she thought of Patrick it was a 'memory' and then pieced together an incoherent narrative from those 'flashes' of memory.
Mignini wasn't there for the first statement, (1:45 AM) after that, and in violation of Italian law, he led her through a questioning session and tried to piece together a narrative which became the 5:45 AM statement. He'd claim it was 'spontaneous' and he was just a notary. He's lying and the fact there's no video of what happened in that room that night despite the fact they'd tapped their phones, taped the previous witness statements, taped their conversations when they didn't know they were being taped and taped just about all of the other statements indicates there was something very rotten in the state of Umbria that night.
Which is lots easier to fool someone about if you think about it.
That's not true, and you've posted the first retraction about twice now. Then she did it again the next day, then the day after wrote her lawyers with it. You're just parroting lies now.
are you on the Knox PR team? you are clearly a Knox apologist. She's always the victim as you see it. the whole world is out to get her, frame her with murder. she never retracted her accusation of Patrick, this was discussed at length at the trial. Her attitude was that all she did was suggest that Patrick might have killed the victim and it was up to the cops to prove it wasn't true b/c she admitted she was confused.
you act like it's the police's job to just know Knox is full of it and not arrest Patrick after she accused him of the murder. what would be said about the police if Patrick was the killer and then he killed again b/c the police never arrested him and questioned him? you are not looking at this with any realism.
I'm going to trust Mignini's account over Amanda Knox's account. one has a lot more credibility than the other, and only one accused of killing her roommate.
Last edited:
anglolawyer
Banned
Not laughing anymore, huh? That little light you can see up ahead is coming in through a lion's *******. That's how far into it's mouth you have shoved your head so far. Keep on going and we'll bite it right off.DrTesla said:
Alrighty. What did Chief of Police Arturo De Felice mean when he told the press conference that same morning that she buckled and told them what they already knew to be true? If you don't trust me on that Grinder will hopefully post the citation. Brain dead or not, I believe the cops did have Patrick in mind before the 05-06 Nov interrogations began.DrTesla said:
Wrong. See below.DrTesla said:
Wrong. Please cite in support of your proposition that the lamp 'was submitted to the jury as evidence'.DrTesla said:
Wrong. Curatolo gave live evidence before Hellman. Wanna cite? Alright - try the Hellman motivation.
Wrong. Here's Massei.
Massei PDF p.72 said:
Let's try to keep track. You didn't know:
1 the time Meredith got home, even although it is fundamental and well-established
2 that Curatolo testified live before Hellman
3 what his evidence was
You also think blood was found on the knife blade (Stefanoni's own records prove the contrary) and you think the lamp was submitted to the jury. Gee, it's hard not to be a superior Brit with you around.
anglolawyer
Banned
Let's add David Camm as an example of the cops sticking to their first theory even when the real perp emerges from the woodwork, forcing them to construct the same kind of nonsensical theory as in the Norfolk four and Perugia cases.
- Status