Continuation Part 11: Amanda Knox/Raffaele Sollecito

[carbonjam72]

Lies? Oh Pulll-ease. BONUS: A PRACTICAL EXPERIMENT OF SELF SUGGESTION

I really dislike getting into these philosophical BS sessions, like is "Rudy" the same as "Rudi" and "Can a guilty person be 'framed'".

But from what you are saying, it seems as if under pressure she repeats, for the sake of not being hit or threatened or otherwise mistreated, what she is told, with no intent to deceive (because she has no real certainty of what they are seeking but is complying with their force) she is indeed stating a "lie".

I suggest that persons under coercion do not lie, but state falsehoods to protect themselves in the short-term. There is a difference if you consider intent and moral responsibility. Amanda's situation is not a unique one. There are many cases of false statements and false confessions elicited under coercion and, of course, torture. The case law of the ECHR is full of such cases, and they are common in the US. Look at the National Registry of Exonerations for the numbers (https://www.law.umich.edu/special/exoneration/Pages/about.aspx).

In my opinion, such statements are not lies, but falsehoods or false statements. And there is a difference that reduces the philosophical clutter. It's like distinguishing "frame" and "official misconduct".

You are, of course, entitled to your opinion.

ETA: A false statement is untrue; but it may not be stated to deceive. It may be the result of error or as an attempt to satirize or to entertain or to prevent the infliction of pain.

AMYS - It's an interesting question that if she is just saying it to make the interrogation stop, or is coerced into saying it, or just because they ask her too, is it still a lie? Are there rules to lying that make them not a lies? What about little white lies? The problem here is that what she said, ended up accusing someone of murder.

Patrick's life was ruined by that one act.
She shouldn't have done it, but I can understand (or at least think I can) why she did it. My next question is always how I would react under similar circumstances, and I really don't know, and I've been interrogated by LE before.

But does that make her a murderer? Lying is something criminals do, but that statement is so devoid of details, it makes me wonder if she was even there during the murder.

In my opinion,

d

I'm certain from what I've read of this incident, that Amanda's memory of Patrick was an induced hallucination, or 'hypnotic suggestion, brought about by extreme exhaustion, physically and mentally threatening behavior, such as being struck twice in the head, being repeatedly yelled at as a liar, tag teamed by a dozen or more hostile interrogators, told there was contrary evidence so they know she's lying, and being threatened with 30 years in prison and never seeing her family again if she didn't tell the truth.

The suggestion that Amanda is responsible, or culpable for these words (in response to being shown Lumumba's text on her phone), which she did not write, but were provided by an interpreter who described herself as a mediator, and suggested that Amanda might be experiencing amnesia and gave a recount of her own experience of amnesia, just seems like blaming the victim.

It's pretty clear Amanda was mentally broken, as was Raf, and that this was exactly the police intention, both in the pre-planned overnight illegal unrecorded interrogations, and the solitary confinement isolation incarceration, denial of lawyers, and media assassination that accompanied their arrests and their first week of captivity (or kidnap-tivity).

Before asking the question of Amanda or Raf's responsibility, because Raf was also broken in the interrogations and also signed a police statement (saying Amanda had gone out), we should first ask what is the responsibility and role of the police is in these events.

I offer you all a practical experiment: Close your eyes, and ask yourself, what color do you see? Now close your eyes again, and rub your eyes (stimulating the neurons), and ask yourself what color you see? Now try to see a different color (choose one you want to see). Guess what, the color you see will change to the one you concentrate on wanting to see.
When Mignini questioned Amanda in December, 2007 at Amanda's request, he asked why she said she saw Patrick. And she said something like, "when I said it I thought it was true".
The spell of the interrogation took days if not weeks to wear off (IIRC from Amanda's book). Calling these statements "lies" is the vilest lie that can be told.
These were two innocent people kidnapped by corrupt monsters in the Italian police, framed by a madman spinning theories of satanic sex cults, who was under indictment for those very excesses in previous cases. Italy is a messed up country to empower a madman like Mignini, and be unable to reign him in without forfeiting the lives of innocent citizens to cover up his messes. This story was never about Amanda.
btw, I heard Patrick's bar was failing. Getting arrested and becoming a professional shill for the prosecution was the greatest business move Patrick ever made. "Amanda named him because he's black" Seriously? This is the guy who is intentionally repeating false statements about innocent people, knows its false, and accepts money for it. Not as bad as the paid witnesses Curatolo and Quintavale, but still a P.O.S. as far as being a human being.

The guilters who repeat these lies, utterly beneath contempt, IMhO.

The only parties guilty of pre-meditated crimes in this case, are Giuliano Mignini and the Italian police.

 

[Numbers]

Thank you the for the deeper analysis of the statistics. Do you still believe that an application submitted approximately a year ago has the slightest chance of logistically being heard by March 2015?

Well, sorry I somehow missed this post until now.

First, some terminology. Hearings are rarely held by the ECtHR as they explain on their site. They do hold some in public as mentioned on their web site. For these hearings, the applicant's lawyer and government's agent are apparently typically the only speakers. However, the vast majority of cases are reviewed from documentation in private judicial meetings, possibly the applicant's lawyer and government's agent attend (I'm not sure of that). The adversarial part of the Court's activity consists of them sending inquiries to the applicant and the state and then providing the replies to the other side for response. This sounds a little cumbersome, but much of what the Court does is to review laws, constitutions, and documents (official and unofficial). When the Court wishes to hear a witness or conduct an on-site investigation, apparently they send a legal team from their staff to interview the witness or conduct the investigation. They also rely on the findings of other international agencies and NGOs.

As of July 4, 2014, Amanda's application, I believe (see my other posts) is somewhere in a queue of about 10000 applications relating to Italy. I don't know its place in the queue or the priority assigned or how quickly the Court is moving through the queue.

Now, will a judgment in Amanda's case be made by March, 2015? Unlikely.

Will there be an admissibility decision announced by March, 2015? There is some probability of that. We shall see.

 

[anglolawyer]

Well, sorry I somehow missed this post until now.

First, some terminology. Hearings are rarely held by the ECtHR as they explain on their site. They do hold some in public as mentioned on their web site. For these hearings, the applicant's lawyer and government's agent are apparently typically the only speakers. However, the vast majority of cases are reviewed from documentation in private judicial meetings, possibly the applicant's lawyer and government's agent attend (I'm not sure of that). The adversarial part of the Court's activity consists of them sending inquiries to the applicant and the state and then providing the replies to the other side for response. This sounds a little cumbersome, but much of what the Court does is to review laws, constitutions, and documents (official and unofficial). When the Court wishes to hear a witness or conduct an on-site investigation, apparently they send a legal team from their staff to interview the witness or conduct the investigation. They also rely on the findings of other international agencies and NGOs.

As of July 4, 2014, Amanda's application, I believe (see my other posts) is somewhere in a queue of about 10000 applications relating to Italy. I don't know its place in the queue or the priority assigned or how quickly the Court is moving through the queue.

Now, will a judgment in Amanda's case be made by March, 2015? Unlikely.

Will there be an admissibility decision announced by March, 2015? There is some probability of that. We shall see.

It would be pretty awesome if the appeal were judged admissible before Cassazione finally decides for guilt. Thanks for this info, Numbers.

 

[RWVBWL]

Unattributed Fingerprints

Greetings,
You know that I sometimes wonder if someone else,
someone more experienced was with Rudy that night Meredith was raped and murdered.

Heck, we still do not know who left the seminal fluid stains,
nor who left the bloody wall hand print either.

It's odd that this bloody wall print can not be positively id'd,
for it's a lot clearer than the bloody bath mat imprint...


From what I recall,
there were 13 unattributed fingerprints found in the girls flat.
Here's a link that discusses them:
http://themurderofmeredithkercher.com/Fingerprints


In Meredith's bedroom, on her desk.
On her door.

In Amanda's bedroom, on her clothing closet doors.
On her window.

In the kitchen,
by the back of the sink area.
(Where the knives where?
Or on the faucet?)

The ones in Laura's bedroom bother me the most,
for it seems like they could be crime related.

1 seems to be on her computer or near it on her desk.

The other one, FR. 17,
seems to be on the only drawer that is open, her underwear drawer.
Or is it on another drawer below this open one?

From what I recall,
Laura did not leave this drawer open when she left for the holiday.

Have a look at the location of the unattributed fingerprints,
I added a green star to their approximate location.

The fingerprints on Laura's underwear drawer bother me.,
simply because it kinda looks like someone was looking for something...

Are all of the unidentified fingerprints from the same person?
They are not from Rudy, Raffaele, Amanda, Meredith, Filomena, Laura, or Giacomo.

Thoughts anyone?
RW

 

[RWVBWL]

Here's some info from Frank Sfarzo about the fingerprints:
Perugia Shock
Thursday, April 23, 2009
DISTURBING PRESENCES
Those Mysterious Fingerprints in the House

How many fingerprints would you expect to find in a house inhabited by 4 women and just visited by some (more or less friendly) guests?
If you think that 97 is a low number you are wrong. The professionals of fingerprints, heard today, defined 97 a very high number for the cottage.

Fingerprints buster Antonino Francaviglia explained that we have a high probability not to leave a print on a surface when we touch it. A fingerprint is made of pressed sweat. If our fingers are too dry (when, for instance, we have just washed our hands, or we washed dishes without gloves, or we have taken a shower) they wouldn't leave any print, they would likely cancel a previous print. If we have enough sweat but we twist our fingers at the end of the contact with the surface we wouldn't leave any readable print. If we touch a surface not smooth or hard enough we wouldn't leave any print.

There are two ways to detect latent fingerprints. Warming super glue (cyanoacrylate) until a closed room is fulfilled with its fumes, or proceeding locally with magnetic powder.
The cyanoacrylate was used in Meredith's room and in the little toilet. In the rest of the house they applied the powder where they thought there should be fingerprints.
Scientific police have the technician who makes the prints visible, the one who takes pictures of them, the one who chooses the readable ones (those that have at least 16 points at a fair distance) and the one who looks for matches comparing them with the suspects fingerprints or with the database.

At the end 108 pictures were taken, each one containing one to three signs. It would be too long to say what was found where. Also there's a bit of confusion with full or partial fingerprints or stains but at the end we may say that of these signs 97 could be said to be fingerprints. 47 belonged to Meredith Kercher, 17 to Rudy Guede, 5 to Raffaele Sollecito, 5 to Filomena Romanelli, 5 to Laura Mezzetti, 4 to Giacomo Silenzi, 1 to Amanda Knox, 13 were not attributed to anyone.

The experts were not surprised at all that there weren't fingerprints, for instance, on Amanda's guitar or on the knives lying on the kitchen sink. They explained that if you wash the cutlery and then you dry it with a dish cloth you don't leave any fingerprint (for not to speak if you use washing gloves).
Scientific police were not surprised at all that there was only one Amanda's fingerprint in the whole house. On a glass there were 3 signs, one of them was recognized as Amanda's fingerprint. The other 2 signs, unreadable, must be the other fingers she used to grab the glass.
We thought, for instance, that Meredith's cellphones were submerged with fingerprints since the many people who touched them before knowing they were so important. And instead only two prints were found on them and one inside one of them.

Now that we know that is so difficult to leave fingerprints, that it's so easy to cancel them, and that there were so many of them we can hardly maintain that a clean-up was performed, even just in the kitchen. The lack of Amanda's fingerprints can be more likely explained with the fact that she wasn't there the night of the crime and that when she came back she didn't have occasion to leave fingerprints having taken a shower and having not touched the right surfaces in the right way.

If we then start to finally consider those 13 unattributed fingerprints, together with the unknown DNA detected, and the other clues that we have seen (two male people running) we understand again that the scenario could be really different from the depicted one and insisting on Amanda and Raffaele maybe had the effect of misleading the investigation from the right direction.

 

[RWVBWL]

And lastly for tonight,
this too has always bothered me:

Perugia Shock:
Friday, May 22, 2009
'UOMO 5' ON THE SCENE
Who are the fifth man and the third woman?

Another mixed DNA, this time attributed to Amanda and Raffaele, was on a self-made cigarette butt in the ashtray that was in the kitchen. But, on the same ashtray, there are other cigarette butts of unknown people, UOMO 5 and DONNA 3.
Who can they be? Giacomo? Filomena? Laura? Or one of them could be the murderer? Better not to know, they must have thought...

* * *

Opinions anyone?
Have a good one,
RW

 

[Dan O.]

..

Are all of the unidentified fingerprints from the same person?
They are not from Rudy, Raffaele, Amanda, Meredith, Filomena, Laura, or Giacomo.

Thoughts anyone?
RW

The odds are that they are not the same person.

For the prints to all be from the same person, The first print can be any one of ten fingers of the unsub 10/10. The second print doesn't match the first so it would need to come from one of the nine remaining fingers 9/10. And the third print 8/10. And 7/10, 6/10, 5/10, 4/10, 3/10 equals a 1.8% chance that the same person would accidentally leave 8 unique fingerprints.

 

[RWVBWL]

Thanks for the input Dan O.
You are probably right as usual.


Here's a question for you:
Do you know where the location of Fingerprint FR. 17 was found exactly at?

And can you re-post the photo of Laura's drawer that you did back on Jan. 2, 2011
when I was 1st asking you about her drawer?

I just tried to copy it,
but it's not up anymore.
That pic showed the area I'm curious about...
Thanks, RW

 

[Dan O.]

Of course, a wiser mor experienced burglar would never have taken off his gloves.

 

[JREF2010]

As of July 4, 2014, Amanda's application, I believe (see my other posts) is somewhere in a queue of about 10000 applications relating to Italy. I don't know its place in the queue or the priority assigned or how quickly the Court is moving through the queue.

Now, will a judgment in Amanda's case be made by March, 2015? Unlikely.

Will there be an admissibility decision announced by March, 2015? There is some probability of that. We shall see.

Interesting, I wonder, what does the sane world think of Italys fiction and illogical system?

The minute one understands the accused can be imprisoned for speaking out in their own defense, in court, then have the Insane Runaway Ego, like Migninni for example, be assigned by the Judge, to investigate the defense/accused statement against the police state....(enter the calunnia charge)....and you realize its a Taliban type legal system.

 

[Samson]

Interesting, I wonder, what does the sane world think of Italys fiction and illogical system?

The minute one understands the accused can be imprisoned for speaking out in their own defense, in court, then have the Insane Runaway Ego, like Migninni for example, be assigned by the Judge, to investigate the defense/accused statement against the police state....(enter the calunnia charge)....and you realize its a Taliban type legal system.

I am interested in a larger question that follows this sequence.
1. Strange case involves American abroad.
2. It really looks like she has a case to answer.
3. The American state department monitors the Italian judicial process via normal diplomatic protocols.
4. Amanda Knox is found guilty of transporting a knife, committing a murder with that knife in a joint action with her boyfriend and Rudy Guede, stealing the cellphones of Meredith Kercher (victim), staging a break in to incriminate others, and falsely naming her employer as the rapist and killer.
5. Hillary Clinton says this followed correct protocols and there is nothing more to say at this time.

 

[Samson]

State Department spokesman Ian Kelly said today that Clinton's initial comments this weekend indicated she wasn't familiar with the case.

"It's fair to say that she is following it closely now," Kelly said.

When asked, however, if the State Department felt Knox had received a fair trial, Kelly replied, "I don't have any indications to the contrary."

 

[Samson]

Also from 2009

Home> GMAJuror in Amanda Knox Case Says Verdict Was 'Agonizing Decision'
PERUGIA, Italy Dec. 7, 2009
By NIKKI BATTISTE and JON MEYERSOHN
Nikki Battiste More from Nikki »Producer, "Nightline"
via Share16Share on emailA juror in the Amanda Knox case told ABC News that reaching a verdict was an "agonizing decision" and that none of the members of the eight-person jury could sleep the night before.

"No one slept the night before ... and I think we were all -- judges included -- in tears before the verdict was read," she said.

 

[Samson]

Crocodiles weep real tears.

But it was a judge only trial. The reason I say this is that it is unchallenged by legal experts, and particularly poster here Machiavelli.

The jurors knew that they were consigning innocent people to pergutory then, as did Nencini's "jurors" in january this year.






o

 

[Samson]

Home Video U.S. World Politics Entertainment Tech Health Lifestyle Money More
InvestigativeSportsGood NewsPhotosJob SearchFusionLive Home> GMAJuror in Amanda Knox Case Says Verdict Was 'Agonizing Decision'
PERUGIA, Italy Dec. 7, 2009
By NIKKI BATTISTE and JON MEYERSOHN
Nikki Battiste More from Nikki »Producer, "Nightline"
via Share16Share on emailA juror in the Amanda Knox case told ABC News that reaching a verdict was an "agonizing decision" and that none of the members of the eight-person jury could sleep the night before.

"No one slept the night before ... and I think we were all -- judges included -- in tears before the verdict was read," she said.

Knox's fate was decided by two Italian judges and six jurors. After more than 11 hours of deliberations, they reached a unanimous verdict, which found Knox guilty of murdering her British roommate, Meredith Kercher, in the cottage they shared.


null
"It was hard to envision Knox doing this," she said. "But it is possible. … We can all drink too much, then get in a car and drive."
And my contribution:
Let us entertain this analogy for a moment , alongside DanO's hilighting Amanda vaguely remembering her boss Lumumba murdering her roommate.

The problem the juror is dealing with is false analogy.
She says I sometimes drink too much, and stupidly drive home, entertaining the risk of being disqualified from driving for a period, Italy.
Amanda on the other hand says I sometimes murder, and stupidly expect to fool the Italian Law Enforcement, entertaining the risk of being jailed for life.


I

 

[CoulsdonUK]

It would be pretty awesome if the appeal were judged admissible before Cassazione finally decides for guilt. Thanks for this info, Numbers.

What do you believe the implication would be to the March 2015 Italian Supreme Court third level trial if the ECHR decided the slander application was ruled as admissible, prior to the third level trial?

ETA: How could such a decision not have a direct impact on an uncompleted judicial process?

 

[carbonjam72]

What do you believe the implication would be to the March 2015 Italian Supreme Court third level trial if the ECHR decided the slander application was ruled as admissible, prior to the third level trial?

ETA: How could such a decision not have a direct impact on an uncompleted judicial process?

It likely would have an effect on the ongoing judicial process. (which you feel would be wrong, correct? Because ECHR isn't supposed to do that).

Very likely though, I agree, the plan to steal Raf's inheritance and imprison two obviously innocent people for a crime everyone (rational) knows they did not commit would be fatally interrupted. How sad for you.

You feel the theft of Raf's inheritance should be allowed to proceed unimpeded, in accordance with the Italian legal process? Because theft and wrongful conviction, is somehow justice due to the magnificence of the Kercher's dignified silence.

 

[carbonjam72]

Confirmation Bias...

Greetings,
You know that I sometimes wonder if someone else,
someone more experienced was with Rudy that night Meredith was raped and murdered.

Heck, we still do not know who left the seminal fluid stains,
nor who left the bloody wall hand print either.

It's odd that this bloody wall print can not be positively id'd,
for it's a lot clearer than the bloody bath mat imprint...


From what I recall,
there were 13 unattributed fingerprints found in the girls flat.
Here's a link that discusses them: http://themurderofmeredithkercher.com/Fingerprints

In Meredith's bedroom, on her desk.
On her door.

In Amanda's bedroom, on her clothing closet doors.
On her window.

In the kitchen,
by the back of the sink area.
(Where the knives where?
Or on the faucet?)

The ones in Laura's bedroom bother me the most,
for it seems like they could be crime related.

1 seems to be on her computer or near it on her desk.

The other one, FR. 17,
seems to be on the only drawer that is open, her underwear drawer.
Or is it on another drawer below this open one?

[qimg]http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/picture.php?albumid=480&pictureid=9299[/qimg]


From what I recall,
Laura did not leave this drawer open when she left for the holiday.

Have a look at the location of the unattributed fingerprints,
I added a green star to their approximate location.
[qimg]http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/picture.php?albumid=480&pictureid=9298[/qimg]


The fingerprints on Laura's underwear drawer bother me.,
simply because it kinda looks like someone was looking for something...

Are all of the unidentified fingerprints from the same person?
They are not from Rudy, Raffaele, Amanda, Meredith, Filomena, Laura, or Giacomo.

Thoughts anyone?
RW

The link you've posted is to one of the hate-cult sites, and their MO is to interpret anything in the context of guilt. They raise questions about random facts, and then invite us to answer their question, with their implied solution of 'guilt'.

I think you're making essentially the same mistake, and for similar reasons.

You want to validate the idea there was more people than Rudy involved or participating in the attack on Meredith. So you're willing to attribute any traces in the cottage as also attributable to the murder (Nencini did this too, but only in regard to Amanda), in spite of the fact that those traces cannot be dated, and in this instance, cannot even be specifically identified.

Smudgy fingerprints that can't be identified don't suggest anything, or at least nothing reliable.

The fact that there are only Rudy's footprints in Meredith's blood, should tell you only one person assaulted Meredith. Only Rudy's fingerprints in blood, and his DNA (which had no innocent explanation for his having directly deposited it), should tell you Rudy was the only person there at the time of the attack.

Now, if a second person were involved in the robbery with Rudy, but did not physically participate in the murder, but were for example in the cottage, or waiting outside, then that is at least possible (not contradicted by evidence). But what evidence is there to suggest this is true?

What would such a second person be doing when Rudy decides to drop a deuce in the large bathroom, and Meredith comes home?

Is it Koko's car parked outside that has you hooked on this "sidetracking"? He claims he evaded the deadly trio by throwing olives at their ringleader Amanda. These are not master criminals.

You're also stuck on the hair in Meredith's hand. But hair and blood from Filomena's broken window also managed not to give a test result, or got lost.

Your research skills, like finding Mignini with that tape recorder, in the act of recording Lalli, was a classic. But I'm thinking on this issue, you're letting a hypothesis color your perceptions of evidence, i.e., confirmation bias.

By the way, did you try the experiment in self-suggestion I offered in my post at top of page? (post #3001).

 

[anglolawyer]

What do you believe the implication would be to the March 2015 Italian Supreme Court third level trial if the ECHR decided the slander application was ruled as admissible, prior to the third level trial?

ETA: How could such a decision not have a direct impact on an uncompleted judicial process?

If the appeal is ruled admissible, it climbs a major hurdle and becomes something which has a real prospect of success. While I have no reason to think it would make any difference outwardly (I would love to be wrong) and the ISC would go ahead and affirm Nencini anyway (pessimism on that front is sadly now fully justified) it would make a few sleep less soundly in their beds. The prospect of the entire process (not just calumny) being holed below the waterline would be delicious IMO.

Your last question defeats me I'm afraid. A decision purely on admissibility of the calumny appeal would likely not stop Italy proceeding to the end of the line. Well, that's my guess, but who knows what might go on behind closed doors? It's such a high profile case that I just can't see Italy saying: duh, we have been such dumb schmucks. Too embarrassing.

 

[Bill Williams]

What do you believe the implication would be to the March 2015 Italian Supreme Court third level trial if the ECHR decided the slander application was ruled as admissible, prior to the third level trial?

ETA: How could such a decision not have a direct impact on an uncompleted judicial process?

If the appeal is ruled admissible, it climbs a major hurdle and becomes something which has a real prospect of success. While I have no reason to think it would make any difference outwardly (I would love to be wrong) and the ISC would go ahead and affirm Nencini anyway (pessimism on that front is sadly now fully justified) it would make a few sleep less soundly in their beds. The prospect of the entire process (not just calumny) being holed below the waterline would be delicious IMO.

Your last question defeats me I'm afraid. A decision purely on admissibility of the calumny appeal would likely not stop Italy proceeding to the end of the line. Well, that's my guess, but who knows what might go on behind closed doors? It's such a high profile case that I just can't see Italy saying: duh, we have been such dumb schmucks. Too embarrassing.

What is of note is above two English-blokes discussing this, still in 2014.

Of the many myths thrown out there to deflect attention from arguing the actual evidence, and constructing a timeline which makes sense of it.... was this business that it was only Americans arguing innocence.

And that went even farther, that to explain why Barbie Latza Nadeau, Andrea Vogt and others had so much trouble penetrating the American news market (which they didn't), was because there'd been a concerted PR battle initiated by the Knox family and implemented by Gogerty-Marriott of Seattle.

Fortunately people in England are discussing this in good faith as well.... no less that Michael Winterbottom makes a film about the UK tabloid media; and I am sure that one of the hate-sites will now claim to have the receipt from Gogerty-Marriott which paid off both Barbie Latza Nadeau and Winterbottom. Of course, it was the Masons who facilitated the arrangements.

All those guilter memes have gone by the boards these days, it seems. At least among people willing to take a look at what's what. It's good to see.