Continuation Part Seven: Discussion of the Amanda Knox/Raffaele Sollecito case

Status
Not open for further replies.
Mary_H said:
My personal opinion is that Amanda and Raffaele should not answer questions or feel the need to explain themselves in any way. There are too many nuts out there interested only in entrapping them.
Click to expand...

Me, I'm torn. They certainly are under no obligation to explain themselves. And one thing this guilter PR campaign has shown itself adept at is to misconstrue the most innocent thing.

Knox dressing up as her favourite soccer player gets contorted into Knox dressing as a cat burglar, therefore disrepecting Meredith because it was, ah, er, the day before the anniversary murder.

Raffaelle and Amanda may as well be themselves. It may be wise to keep to a small circle of friends and family, but the largest majority of people will see things for what they are, not the factoids they become.....

..... at the hands of tthe guilter PR Supertanker.
 
Last edited:
RandyN said:
Yes MS Mignini fighter...you can post a link to Steves recent blog post here. It is on topic and topical. Rather than a link just copy and paste...I see that all the time here.
Click to expand...

How funny, I go here so little that my post was actually me attempting to respond to something I read after doing a google search that pointed me here. I could read this thing for hours..wow.

Because I posted without quoting whatever it was I was responding to, it just appeared as a sentence out of nowhere. Sorry about that. Don't even know where the post was that I was responding to.

Interesting thread.

This whole thing, it's a long drawn out Carnival to me, with Elephant poop stinking up the theatre. :/

I guess Steve has been in a writing mood. He actually posted 3 blogs on this case in 3 days. The one I was originally referring to, however, was this one:

http://gmancasefile.com/1/post/2014/01/-investigations-and-the-families-of-victims.html It's on HR but more importantly, it's on the families of victims, and "imprinting".

There are 2 more he wrote afterwards. The Musings of a Show Trial is an interesting one..

:)

PS I guarantee Amanda is NOT going anywhere. So arguing about it is wasting valuable time and energy. The fix is SO in. I am desperately worried for Raffaele. I cannot believe what he is having to endure. It is very sad, and very wrong and for those of you who believe in his innocence, as do I (100%) please keep him and his family in mind. I will still not give up no matter what. Again, we came in unbiased, as most of the supporters of Amanda and Raffaele did, and we didn't know them from Adam and found innocence. Happy Fri. PM. :)
 
By their fruits ye shall know them

Maybe it isn't such a bad idea to judge people by their previous behavior. I mean, look at Skeptical Bystander describe herself in her 20's.

by Skeptical Bystander » Thu Feb 12, 2009 1:31 am
.....Your post about the role of drugs got me thinking about my relationship to illicit drugs when I was the age of our three suspects as opposed to today. When I was in my late teens and early 20's, I felt like most people in that age group: invincible. As a result, I did not weigh the potential danger involved in many at-risk activities, including the use of illicit drugs, overindulgence in alcohol, hitch-hiking, sexual encounters, etc. In other words, I took risks that today appear foolish and even suicidal. I don't believe my attitude towards risk was exceptional. People around me, my peers, were doing pretty much the same thing.

The frontal cortex, which is the seat of reason, is not fully developed until we are about 25, which may partly explain why people in their early 20's don't always weigh risks well. Actually, it isn't that they don't weigh them. They do, but for some reason they often decide to go ahead and do certain things anyway. Maybe it is due to lack of experience and, in particular, lack of adverse experience. Once bitten, twice shy.
I tried many different drugs way back then, including MDMA (similar to and an earlier version of ecstasy), peyote, cocaine (of course), mushrooms, etc. It was usually a question of opportunity - they were available - and probably some peer pressure. I never used these drugs alone. It was always within the context of a group. I was never the instigator, but went along for the ride. I never worried about where the drugs came from or what else they might be laced with. I never even thought about those things until my experiments in drug use were long over.

It is entirely possible that one or all of the suspects was on something other than cannabis that night. If so, then as you suggest the memory loss is not a lame story that no one believes, but instead the sad truth. It would explain the loss of inhibition that could have led to this act of depravity.

http://www.perugiamurderfile.org/viewtopic.php?f=39&t=98&p=4037#p4037
Click to expand...

On the one hand, when SB wrote this, she probably wanted people to know, first of all, that she "gets it." She gets how people in their 20's can repeatedly ingest a variety of illegal street drugs while simultaneously engaging in other high-risk activities. That's why SB's so certain that Amanda and Raffaele committed an "act of depravity" -- been there, done that.

On the other hand, to be fair, if Amanda's record of getting wild with her homies is going to predict that she could commit murder, then what are we to think of SB's record and (unknown) subsequent behavior? She's done **** Amanda and Raffaele never even thought about!
 
Last edited:
Easy prey

Welshman said:
What happened in the interrogation stinks to high heaven. During the interrogations, Amanda and Raffaele were not officially told they were suspects, they were denied access to lawyers, the interrogations were not taped and the police relied on coerced confessions. Why did the police have to rely on such underhand and dubious tactics if they had a strong case against Amanda and Raffaele?
Click to expand...
.
Good question Welshman. Unlike street wise criminals, naive nerdy kids trust the police. Naive nerdy kids don't demand a lawyer. Naive nerdy kids believe the police lies. Naive nerdy kids can be intimidated into making self incriminating statements. Easy prey, compared to street wise cat burglars like Rudy. Easy, but pointless.
.
 
Mary_H said:
Maybe it isn't such a bad idea to judge people by their previous behavior. I mean, look at Skeptical Bystander describe herself in her 20's.

On the one hand, when SB wrote this, she probably wanted people to know, first of all, that she "gets it." She gets how people in their 20's can repeatedly ingest a variety of illegal street drugs while simultaneously engaging in other high-risk activities. That's why SB's so certain that Amanda and Raffaele committed an "act of depravity" -- been there, done that.

On the other hand, to be fair, if Amanda's record of getting wild with her homies is going to predict that she could commit murder, then what are we to think of SB's record and (unknown) subsequent behavior? She's done **** Amanda and Raffaele never even thought about!
Click to expand...

The problem of course with Skeptical Bystander's theory is that it is wild speculation. There is no relationship of any kind to Rudy. There is no evidence that Amanda or Raffaele were taking any drugs other than some grass. Amanda is not a saint, she admitted to having casual sex but beyond that and a little cannabis she is nothing like Skeptical Bystander.
 
AmyStrange said:
-

The biggest problem with these cases are the confessions. They are the back up evidence that never goes away. No matter how much you prove the other stuff wrong, that is what everyone then turns to as proof positive she did it. Why would you lie? Why would you accuse other people wrongfully if you're not the murderer? The hypocrisy of believing only half her lie as a lie will never dawn on them.

Most of the false confession cases I've studied are filled with stories of promises to stop if you they confess. Some people can't handle that kind of stress and will do anything to make it stop. Especially, if you are really innocent and and believe authority is always right. Amanda even said something similar after her release (I think) that she understood why the prosecution did what it had done to her.

That confession will haunt her forever.

Her and Raffaele.

I wonder how history will treat them? I think now, that's the only question really left to ask,

d

-
Click to expand...

Is it accurate to categorize what Knox said as a confession? What is the most confession like statement that she made?
 
Strozzi said:
Toto, I agree with you that all this talk about extradition is dispiriting. I, too, read all of Machiavelli's tweets from the courtroom yesterday. The detail that Mach provided was very good, given the circumstances, and I look forward to reading an English translation of the full transcript. Thank you again, Machiavelli.

As for the content, I was surprised to see just how psychologically-collapsed Amanda was in the Nov 5/6 nighttime interrogation. Also, the psychic-like role of Anna Donnino, the translator, who exceeded her responsibilities as translator to be a shaper of Amanda's thoughts and statements. That is in addition to the role Donnino took in convincing Knox that she was there, but traumatized, and just did not remember it, and now needed to remember.

Please see The Guardian article that relates actual discussion of the above in court in March 2009: http://www.theguardian.com/world/2009/mar/13/kercher-knox-trial

I have a relative who is a professional sign-language interpreter for the deaf, licensed to interpret in medical and, possibly, legal discussions. The professional code of ethics to which she subscribes and is bound to by her state professional license requires her to translate to/from her client - serving her deaf client - not serving the interests or particular wants or needs of others present. It makes no difference who is paying her.

She cannot withhold comments made by others in the room about the deaf person. For example, if a doctor or other family member present is discussing the deaf person, she must relate it all as precisely as she can. None of this "don't tell her, but ..." stuff. If such a request was voiced by someone in the room, my relative's responsibility is to sign to the deaf person that the doctor or relative just said "don't tell her, but . . . "

I suspect that Donnino's transgressions would be grounds in a U.S. court for the court to throw out any testimony obtained through Donnino. And possibly regard any effort by Donnino to shape (mislead?) Knox's memory of events and people allegedly involved as absolutely wrong. Possibly even regard it as witness-tampering.
Click to expand...

Thanks. Yes I did read your link. I understand we might see evidence through confirmation bias but to get a sense of Amanda crumbling that night and NOT implicating Raffaele even though jt was his confusion about dates that arguably started the interrogations against Amanda and her subsequent collapse does not in any sense sit well with a view of her being guilty in my mind. The fact that she chooses now, of all times, to write about an April Fool's prank reinforces , in my mind, a view of someone who generally speaking has to speak the truth. If she had been guilty there is no doubt in my mind that she would have confessed that night.
ETA When I say confession, I mean a "true" confession implicating Raffaele and herself in the murder of Meredith, rather than the false and confusing statement she gave implicating Patrick.
 
Last edited:
AmyStrange said:
-

See, this is the kind of thing that proves to me that it's not about remembering Meredith. It's about getting that witch Amanda.

-
Click to expand...


It's all about hate for Amanda - even as far as they show ignore, show support and minimise the involvement of Rudy Guede. They are essentially Pro-Guede-Posters, which is in no way putting Meredith first
 
AmyStrange said:
-


-

I think it's more accurate to call it a false confession, but that's me...

-
Click to expand...

In the context of the claim that Knox confessed it sounds like Knox confessed to the murder or having a role in the murder. I don't think she did either and as such I think it is at least misleading to refer to the statement as a confession.

It is a confession in the sense that she admitted being in the house when Kercher was killed but it is not a confession in that she admitted to any crime.

I reviewed the statements that were listed here before I wrote the above. Perhaps I am confused or I am misinterpreting something.

http://themurderofmeredithkercher.com/Amanda_Knox's_Confession
 
toto said:
Thanks. Yes I did read your link. I understand we might see evidence through confirmation bias but to get a sense of Amanda crumbling that night and NOT implicating Raffaele even though jt was his confusion about dates that arguably started the interrogations against Amanda and her subsequent collapse does not in any sense sit well with a view of her being guilty in my mind. The fact that she chooses now, of all times, to write about an April Fool's prank reinforces , in my mind, a view of someone who generally speaking has to speak the truth. If she had been guilty there is no doubt in my mind that she would have confessed that night.
ETA When I say confession, I mean a "true" confession implicating Raffaele and herself in the murder of Meredith, rather than the false and confusing statement she gave implicating Patrick.
Click to expand...

She was asked about this rumor, so she clarified what really happened. Why shouldn't she? It was a harmless practical joke. The people who are gloating about this revelation have completely forgotten that they described it for years as a "rape prank" involving mock assailants with ski masks.

Meanwhile they ignore Guede's track record before the murder... breaking into places, threatening a guy with a knife, starting a fire in someone's apartment... all without the help of accomplices.
 
davefoc said:
Is it accurate to categorize what Knox said as a confession? What is the most confession like statement that she made?
Click to expand...

There was a time when any comments-section discussion on false confessions would be interrupted by some PGP contributor declaring that Amanda made an "accusation, not a confession". The critical point on the statements of November 5-6 is that they are easily-recognisable as coerced false statements.

Since such statements are typically confessions, and indeed Amanda allegedly "confessed" to being at the murder scene, the distinction is meaningless. Any statement resulting from an interrogation of this nature has to be regarded as the work of the interrogators alone.
 
toto said:
For those in the U.K this is quite an interesting read :
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/magazine-25625572
It is about the stress Christopher Jeffries went through when arrested for the murder of Joanna Yates.
Click to expand...

Interesting article. The best true crime book I have read lately is The Suspect: A Memoir, about Jeffrey Womack and the Marcia Trimble murder in Nashville. The cops hounded Womack for almost 30 years until finally they got a DNA match with the guy who really did it.

The book is on Kindle for roughly the price of a cheeseburger.
 
LashL said:
If that's an accurate reflection of what Nencini scheduled, the highlighted bit seems to be putting the cart before the horse, and would appear to illustrate some improper pre-judging going on.
Click to expand...

Mistranslation. It's the case of similar words having different meanings.

La sentenza would mean the ruling rather then the conviction or anything related to punishment.
 
Last edited:
toto said:
For those in the U.K this is quite an interesting read :
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/magazine-25625572
It is about the stress Christopher Jeffries went through when arrested for the murder of Joanna Yates.
Click to expand...

My reaction to the Jeffries arrest was, and is, that it is another example of the Cluedo principle(*) at work: police seem unable to look beyond the people closest to the victim.

(*) that's my name for it - in the Cluedo game, all possible culprits are known at the start of the "investigation".
 
Antony said:
There was a time when any comments-section discussion on false confessions would be interrupted by some PGP contributor declaring that Amanda made an "accusation, not a confession". The critical point on the statements of November 5-6 is that they are easily-recognisable as coerced false statements.

Since such statements are typically confessions, and indeed Amanda allegedly "confessed" to being at the murder scene, the distinction is meaningless. Any statement resulting from an interrogation of this nature has to be regarded as the work of the interrogators alone.
Click to expand...

I did not mean to express disagreement with most of this. I think it was a coerced false statement. Sometime PGP are right and in this case I don't think I would object to characterizing the statement as an accusation.

The reason I brought this up is that it is routinely reported that Knox confessed and by the most common usage of that terminology Knox didn't confess as I understand the situation. A confession would have included details about what she did to facilitate the murder of Kercher IMO.

Given the coercive nature of the interrogation any confession or accusation would need to have included details that could have been corroborated before the statement could have been used as evidence in a US court I suspect. There were no details that could be corroborated and there was no confession of a crime. She does implicate Lumumba,
 
LashL said:
If that's an accurate reflection of what Nencini scheduled, the highlighted bit seems to be putting the cart before the horse, and would appear to illustrate some improper pre-judging going on.
Click to expand...


That's a good point. I suspect that one of two things is more accurate:

1) there is an implied "if required" that sits after the word "sentence", which has become superfluous to say explicitly in Italian legalese shorthand;

2) The word "sentenza" can also be interpreted as "judgement" or similar.


I have always understood the word "sentenza" to mean "sentence", in my not-much-more-than-conversational knowledge of Italian. And the Oxford Dictionaries translation concurs:

http://www.oxforddictionaries.com/translate/italian-english/sentenza

But as I said, it's entirely possible that the context and/or convention dictates that the use of "sentenza" in this instance does not specifically mean "sentence" without any qualification.
 
Charlie Wilkes said:
These hearings have addressed nothing of importance. They are a fig leaf for a decision that was made before they started.
Click to expand...


I don't share your view. My faith in the appellate court system in Italy is currently sufficiently north of zero to make me think that the Nencini court will arrive at an independently-motivated verdict.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Back
Top Bottom