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

[Skind]

She did give specifics of action. She said Patrick wanted to have sex with MK, that she covered her ears while he was raping her. That seems like more detail than the police needed if all they wanted was for her to place herself at the crime scene or accuse Patrick.

Wearing that t-shirt at the trial indicates she wasn't scared of Italian justice. This was after them supposed hitting her in the head and using mental mindgames to get her to say what they wanted. You'd think she'd show up in her most professional looking attire.

So, you expect a non-professional to a) have professional looking attire, and b) still have it after going to prison, and c) know enough to wear it to court. That's not a supportable assertion by any means.

No, she did not give specifics of action. She did not say when she met Lumumba, what part of the square/steps she met him at, what he was wearing, whether Sollecito was there or not, wheter Meredith was home or not, when why and how Lumumba went into the room, whether Meredith had interacted with Lumumba first or not, or indeed, any other detail that would actually reliably place her at the scene. You know, the very thing the police are questioning her about. It's not just about getting a name, but getting usable information to use against that name later.

The police need more than a mere "Patrick did it" if they want to arrest him with any chance of actually proceeding onto a charge. Can you imagine if the defence for Lumumba had cross examined Knox in court and found she couldn't provide any details? She, and thusly the prosecutions case, would have been slaughtered.

Her 'confession' is full of 'I can't remember' and 'I think' and other general vagueness. Had Lumumba been found guilty, you'd undoubtedly be pointing to her confession as a masterclass in being intentionally vague.

 

[Chris_Halkides]

I never heard of somebody automatically imagining stuff that isn't real as the result of somebody asking them to recall stuff. Either it happened or it didn't.

Read "The Dreams of Ada" or "The Innocent Man." The cops' asking a potential defendant to imagine things is a sign that an interrogation is going off the deep end.

 

[Bill Williams]

I'm calling one of them over confident. I'm also not convinced his statement means what you claim it does. I'd like to see the entire statement because I believe we are missing some nuance.

He coud just be saying they knew all along that somebody committed the murder, not Knox, which is incorrect but still not the meaning you are assigning it.

The quote actually confirms they were not out to get Knox.

So, your view is that no matter what, everything that the cops say is explanable, but Knox is always a liar .

Why didn't you just say so?

 

[Chris_Halkides]

Honor Bound is a good read

Chris, why would he talk about pricking the victim with a knife if there was no connection to the knife found in his house. It doesn't seem like an interesting thing to note just for the sake of it. He knows they read his journal. He later admitting lying about this, why lie about a knife pricking if it wasn't even the same knife. That makes no sense.

No, they seized Raf's journal from his lawyer, who successfully argued with Mignini to get it back because it had been taken from the lawyer illegally. Strange how no PG-commenters chide the police over this obvious breach of civil liberties. Raffaele was just a scared kid in jail, and his initial thought about the knife should be interpreted in that context IMO. He discussed it in his book (and says that there was no connection), but he did not admit to lying. I don't think he lied, but (YMMV) I suggest reading the passage and deciding for yourself.

 

[Desert Fox]

So, your view is that no matter what, everything that the cops say is explanable, but Knox is always a liar .

Why didn't you just say so?

Isn't it always the way?

 

[Skind]

It isn't up to us to decide if she is qualified or not. That is rather pretentious. Her employer decides if she is qualified or not. I see no reason why they would want to hire an unqualified person. I'm assuming they got quite a few resumes from qualified people and they chose her? Why do you think that is?

I don't think it is fair to compare degrees in different countries. Her degree could be like a bachelors and masters and phd combined for all we know. Countries education systems are not exactly alike.

I feel like DNA testing is cookbook follow the recipe stuff. If you want to cal it science, that's fine, but I think that some of you exxaggerate the complexity of DNA profiling work. It just isnt that cerebral.

No, employers do not determine if a person has a professional qualification or not. That's the duty of the professional body. That's the dividing line between a vocation and a profession. You still hold the professional qualification (but not always professional membership) regardless of employment status. Employers merely determine what level of qualification they would require. That the lab requires a mere undergraduate degree, and a short postgrad course (that wouldn't even qualify as Certificate level under CAT or any other system including those in Italy) does not mean that the person would be regarded as qualified on an international scale, even though they'd still be considered to hold the degree.

It's exactly fair to compare international degrees - my profession does it, as do all the other health and medical professions active in the UK. Aside from Uni's, there are multiple cross-comparison processes, not least the Bologna process.

Come on, you're talking about a case involving international students (one Erasmus), the idea that qualifications are cross-compared between countries should not be news to you. You're essentially disagreeing with most professional bodies and Universities in Europe and the US.

We know exactly the level of qualification Stefanoni holds as one of her defenders (a man/woman/group of people) posting under the name Machiavelli came along and told us exactly what qualifications she has.

 

[Bill Williams]

That is a generic argument that I can just as easily lob at Knox supporters. Everything Knox does is explainable but everything the cops say is a lie, every action they take is corrupt or dumb.

Let's take them one at a time. What is the quality of comment of the latest judge, Judge Nencini, who says that 2 female Y-genetic samples were found on the clasp?

 

[Skind]

Her defense lawyers no doubt told her to dress up for court. They would be incompetent if they didn't. Maybe that is why she lost in court, they didn't have a clue.

Obviously the police needed more, which is why they released him, no thanks to Knox. But all they needed to arrest him was Knox's accusation and Knox was doing this as a diversion, time buying move.

Her confession is full of vagueness so she can avoid personal responsiblity later by saying she was confused, which is exactly what she did. She bought some time with it.

So now you're making assumptions about what the defence were thinking. How can you do this is you're not psychic anc don't know their minds? You cannot undertake assumption of the style you earlier told people off for. That is simply not acceptable. Stop it.

The police did not need more on Lumumba - that is clear from the preliminary judges report. The preliminary judge indicated strongly that conviction was a virtual certainty. The police certainly did not freely release him - his lawyer found multiple reliable alibis for a significant period of time, yet the police did not let him go until some time after - coincidentally right after the forensics came back and destroyed their case. But don't try to kid anyone that they would have released him if the forensics hadn't exculpated him. He'd be in jail right now if Guede hadn't slipped up and told his friend.

It was Guede slipping up that led to Lumumba being freed, nothing to do with the police detective work.

Also: make up your mind - was Knox specific or vague? You can't have it both ways, yet you're trying to. Pick one option and then stick to it.

 

[Desert Fox]

That is a generic argument that I can just as easily lob at Knox supporters. Everything Knox does is explainable but everything the cops say is a lie, every action they take is corrupt or dumb.

The thing is that when I look at guilt or innocence, I effective forget every comment that either side said. I work from whatever evidence I have

Have three suspects. Suspects one (male), suspect two (female), suspect three (male). There was a suspect four but we will drop him for various reasons.
Suspect two and three alibi each other.

While I tried some semblance of order, they are out of order:
1. We have a body.
2. We have pretty solid palm and DNA (not really trace) on the body and in purse from one suspect (and in the toilet.)
3. We have a single bloody foot print which is at least consistent with that suspect.
4. Crime scene is a small space. Would expect there to be traces of everybody else involved.
5. No signs of clean up in that space. Cleaning DNA evidence of some people and not others appears next to impossible.
6. When involved in using a knife, those involved usually will get cut
One suspect has potential cuts. Same one as the hard DNA trace, and palm print. Others do not. No signs of blood on any of their clothes as well
7. One suspect (not the one with cuts) after a long interrogation with a language barrier implicates somebody not involved (Suspect four) and makes many mistakes in describing what occurred. In the Norfolk Four, something very similar occurred. Evidence of false confession
8. Bathroom has blood from one suspect but she lives there with DNA of victim who lived there. Just pierced ears. Also a women that may be menstruating. Blood possible if not probable. Evidence in other places that she is not a great house keeper.
9. Suspect with DNA in victim, on purse, with bloody fingerprint flees country right after murder.
10. Same suspect also confessed to being at scene to friend (not during an interrogation) and appears to pretend to be a witness but does not call for help.
11. Evidence of knife with DNA was tested beyond limits of machine found DNA of victim although no blood. Retest of the blade with checking handle were later done and no DNA found. Even if DNA had been found, would not be conclusive due to (not sure if there is supporting evidence but is probable) suspect two and victim shared clothes
12. Evidence of Bra clasp of DNA Y-Hapligroup that does not exclude suspect three. Problem is that it is a group that includes a large number of males and there are four other male Y hapligroups on bra clasp. Bra clasp also bounced on the floor for multiple weeks and the forensic teams did not follow what are international standards. There coupld be an innocent explanation not even involving contamination but contamination is highly possible.
13. Not 100% certain but during most likely time of murder, evidence on computer of suspect three that he and subject two are watching movie.

This is all before any questions of integrity of the various parties (which I think they stink) but just the evidence argues for probable guilt for suspect one and not guilty for suspect two and three.

Edit: Anything major I am forgetting?

 

[Kevin_Lowe]

That is a generic argument that I can just as easily lob at Knox supporters. Everything Knox does is explainable but everything the cops say is a lie, every action they take is corrupt or dumb.

If Knox is innocent and the whole business is a screwup along the lines of the Norfolk Four case, or the Lesley Molseed murder, or any number of other cases where innocent people got railroaded it's perfectly normal for everything Knox to do to be explainable. If you were accused of a murder you didn't commit and the police scraped together a few thousand pages worth of bad "evidence" against you, yes, all of that bad "evidence" against you would one way or another be explainable.

In the cases I mentioned the police did indeed have thousands of pages of "evidence", just as they did in the Kercher case. All of it fell to pieces under rational examination, just as it does in this case. There's plenty of precedent for misguided prosecutions to throw enormous amounts of spaghetti at the wall in the hope that something will stick - if you have no good evidence that is pretty much what you have to do to make a case at all.

 

[Skind]

That is a generic argument that I can just as easily lob at Knox supporters. Everything Knox does is explainable but everything the cops say is a lie, every action they take is corrupt or dumb.

Yeah, it's almost as if one was a ditzy literature student from one of the hippiest places on the planet and the rest of them were rigourously selected for a specific occupation from a self-selected group of people, where the training for that occupation involves training in observation, recording, description skills, communication and interogation, and where they were all highly experienced in elliciting and recording details for further use, and where they had access to a plethora of devices to record information just in case they might be seriously questioned on it by a hostile and highly trained person later.

You'd almost think the whole point of training police was so that they could at least have a chance of getting the important details right at least some of the time - like whether someone was ordered in or not, or which of three excuses for not recording the interogation was the right one.

 

[acbytesla]

I think they asked her to try to remember. Not make up untrue stuff. That doesn't help the investigation. She lead them on a wild goose chase with Patrick and given they freed Patrick they did not want to go on a wild goose chase regarding him.

We'll never know, will we? Of course they didn't want her to make up untrue stuff. But that doesn't mean that they didn't feel that Amanda was guilty and they weren't looking for her to confess? Or until as one of the detectives said "she buckled and told us what we knew to to be true".

What do you think they meant by that Aiken? Especially considering what she told them turned out not to be true? That detective's statement alone tells you that they were already predisposed to Amanda telling them that she was there while Patrick Lumumba killed Meredith.

You can dance around this forever, but there they were in a rooms designed to record interrogations and there they had two murder suspects in Amanda and Raffaele and they never bothered to record either one. Why is that? My guess is that you would not be so predisposed to believing Amanda was guilty if you could have watched the interrogations.

You can blame Amanda for Patrick Lumumba's two week incarceration if you want, she does bear some responsibility. But personally I blame the police in Perugia far more than Amanda. I strongly believe that they suggested that they knew that Patrick had killed Meredith and Amanda was just blocking it out. Then they arrested Patrick with nothing but Amanda's coerced statement and despite many people telling them that it was impossible as he was Le Chic, they held him.

This is a perfect example of the Reid interrogation technique resulting in a false statement.

 

[Chris_Halkides]

shoe prints in the flat

DF,

That is a very good list, but you seem to have left out bloody shoe prints of the size and type known to have been worn by the individual in question.

 

[Desert Fox]

DF,

That is a very good list, but you seem to have left out bloody shoe prints of the size and type known to have been worn by the individual in question.

That was #3
We have a single bloody foot print which is at least consistent with that suspect.

 

[Chris_Halkides]

unlucky Lindy

If Knox is innocent and the whole business is a screwup along the lines of the Norfolk Four case, or the Lesley Molseed murder, or any number of other cases where innocent people got railroaded it's perfectly normal for everything Knox to do to be explainable. If you were accused of a murder you didn't commit and the police scraped together a few thousand pages worth of bad "evidence" against you, yes, all of that bad "evidence" against you would one way or another be explainable.

In the cases I mentioned the police did indeed have thousands of pages of "evidence", just as they did in the Kercher case. All of it fell to pieces under rational examination, just as it does in this case. There's plenty of precedent for misguided prosecutions to throw enormous amounts of spaghetti at the wall in the hope that something will stick - if you have no good evidence that is pretty much what you have to do to make a case at all.

The Lindy Chamberlain case did not have a false confession. However, it did have plenty of evidence that fell apart upon close examination. From what I have casually read, my understanding is that the police seized upon minor inconsistencies between Michael's and Lindy's accounts. This is another similarity to the present case. One difference is that the Perugian authorities threw linguini, as opposed to sphaghetti.

EDT
From the Morling report: "I have referred elsewhere to the unsatisfactory features in Mrs. Chamberlain's account of having seen a dingo at the tent and I do not underestimate their importance. It can fairly be said that there are inconsistencies and improbabilities in her story and in the various versions she has given of it. However, as I point out in Chapter 15, there are possible explanations for many of the apparently unsatisfactory features of her evidence.

On the other hand the obstacles to the acceptance of the Crown's case are both numerous and formidable. Almost every facet of its case is beset by serious difficulties. Some of these must now be mentioned.

The Crown is unable to suggest a motive or explanation for the alleged murder. The undisputed evidence is that Mrs. Chamberlain was an exemplary mother and was delighted at Azaria's birth. She did not suffer from any form of mental illness nor had she ever been violent to any of her children. She had spent the day with her family on 17 August and had not: exhibited any sign of abnormal behavior or of irritation with Azaria. She was not stressed when she took Azaria to the tent for her expressed purpose of putting her to bed."

 

[Chris_Halkides]

shoe prints, as opposed to a footprint

That was #3
We have a single bloody foot print which is at least consistent with that suspect.

Desert Fox,

I mean the shoe prints that were found in the bedroom and the hallway. Professor Vinci's analysis is very good, IMO.

 

[Desert Fox]

I can't see a true hippy blaming an innocent black guy for a murder.

Members of the Norfolk Four blamed sailors that they barely knew.
What is so different here? Due to her text from Patrick, they narrowed in on him and pushed her into it.

 

[xinonix]

It is quite possible that Rafael cheated on Amanda and had a secret rendez-vous with Meridith at his place
Raffael's DNA got on the clasp when he helped her take off her bra. That knife fell on the floor and Meridith stepped on it while barefoot.
You may not agree with my theory, but you have got to admit it is easier to believe than Mignini's case.

 

[Desert Fox]

Desert Fox,

I mean the shoe prints that were found in the bedroom and the hallway. Professor Vinci's analysis is very good, IMO.

Fair enough, I think I just created a work in progress

 

[Desert Fox]

Nobody can force you to say anything, outside of torture. If you convince me she was tortured, then we can go from there. You are allowing her to escape personal responsbility for her own statements. They merely asked her about a text and the question was legit and would have been asked by any police invesigators trying to solve a murder.

Police interrogations are often torture "lite"
With Russ Faria, for example, the interview with the police, the officer admitted to pushing him hard. If he was a tad weaker willed, I suspect he would have confessed.