Continuation Part 16: Amanda Knox/Raffaele Sollecito

Status
Not open for further replies.
Desert Fox said:
When somebody is being interrogated, somewhere along the line they will probably break. Some people will break after ten hours but some people will break after just a few hours. Amanda was interrogated for many hours over several days.

In any case, the target of the interrogation will look for a way to get out of the interrogation. That might be to confess themselves and/or blame somebody else. The Italian police were pushing Patrick in her face so she broke in the direction they wanted her to.
Click to expand...

What does it say about the character of someone who in an interview situation "breaks" within minutes, in an indecent haste to blame the "African ragazzo", as Amanda called her boss?
 
Vixen said:
?..
Unfortunately,you cannot wind back the clock.
Click to expand...


Actually, that's exactly what the courts can do. They declared that the 5:45 statement could not be used at all and that the 1:45 statement could only be used against others. So there is no confession. It's gone. Didn't you get that memo?
 
Vixen said:
There is no evidence (a) Amanda has received death threats, apart from US tabloids relying on Amanda's PR agency self-serving press reports, (b) they are in any way connected to the Kerchers.

Anyway, Amanda herself said she gets letters from people saying how hot she is.
Click to expand...
If the Kercher family made a statement that they respected the court's decision, and asked people who have supported them in the search for truth to let Amanda and Raffaele live in peace, I would recover some respect for them. At the moment they are due none.
 
Wattson said:
Here's your chance to refute it. If you feel so strong about their guilt you should be able to dismantle this argument with ease.
Click to expand...

I already did. The DNA firm appointed by Nencini showed it was not impossible, as claimed by Vecchiotti and Conti, to duplicate a Low Copy Number sample.

The as of yet untested sample V&C said was food starch, on exhibit 36(i), was found to be Amanda's DNA, and, what's more, was duplicated.

Q.E.D.::
 
Bill Williams said:
I'm being a pest, I know, but the legal issue in play that night was not the "voluntary" nature of any admissions, it was the "spontaneous" nature of them.

No less than Giuliano Mignini covers this at length in his 2010 interview with CNN's Drew Griffin. Mignini defended his admitted encouragement for Knox to, his words, keep making spontaneous statements and all he would do would be to record them as if only a notary.

That legal chicanery did not make it past even the Italian Supreme Court, which until March 2015 was favourable to Mignini's wrongful prosecution. The issue of the non-spontaneous statements (made, further, without mandatory legal representation) is something everyone should agree on; regardless of which side they've been on in the past.

I'm being a pest on this, but the difference between voluntary and spontaneous is what's at issue here.
Click to expand...


Thank you for your acknowledgement.
 
Last edited:
js202 said:
The standard pro-guilt response to your eminently rational position is "Gill is: past his prime/a mere hired gun of the Knoxians/misguided by Conti & Vecchiotti's interpretation of the evidence." Expect one or all of the above from Vixen's quarter in 4, 3, 2, 1...
Click to expand...

Dr Gill supports the defense, so is not impartial and objective.

If you analyse his hypothesis, it is astonishingly vapid. If Dr Gill is to be believed, DNA evidence is not valid if the murderer lives in the same household, even if the murderer's blood is mixed in with the victim's.

How fortuitous for the defense, given Amanda's blood was all over the faucet, mixed with Mez' immediately after the murder. Nice one!
 
Vixen said:
Dr Gill supports the defense, so is not impartial and objective.

If you analyse his hypothesis, it is astonishingly vapid. If Dr Gill is to be believed, DNA evidence is not valid if the murderer lives in the same household, even if the murderer's blood is mixed in with the victim's.

How fortuitous for the defense, given Amanda's blood was all over the faucet, mixed with Mez' immediately after the murder. Nice one!
Click to expand...

But he might support the defence because the evidence supports the defence.
 
Vixen said:
We don't need a crystal ball, we have Amanda's signed statements.
Click to expand...

Ah but the statements were obtained in violation of Amanda's procedural rights. And moreover she did not adopt them later. In a competent jurisdiction the jury would never know about them.
 
Vixen said:
What does it say about the character of someone who in an interview situation "breaks" within minutes, in an indecent haste to blame the "African ragazzo", as Amanda called her boss?
Click to expand...

She had had long interviews for quite a few days hadn't she? Also being interrogated at 1 in the morning is clearly wrong. Reading quite a lot about scientology at the moment; it seems less and less strange to me how the mind can get scrambled.
 
Vixen said:
...or he gets to line his pockets.
Click to expand...

So anyone that disagrees with the prosecution line of reasoning, even if they are a world renowned expert in their field, must have taken bribes?

You don't have a speck of evidence for this charge against Dr. Gill. It makes sense that you support the prosecution side in this case -- both of you feel free to make charges with no evidence to substantiate them.

Again, good thing we checked with the Italian Supreme Court. They have ruled that Amanda and Raffaele are not guilty.
 
Vixen said:
If you walk into the police station and proffer information of your own volition, there is no requirement for the police to advise a lawyer.

As soon as Amanda's status changed from witness to suspect - when she said she was there at the murder - the interview was immediately suspended.

Amanda signed her voluntary statement voluntarily.

You might wish she had kept her mouth shut,as a lawyer would have advised her. Unfortunately,you cannot wind back the clock.
Click to expand...

You have no understanding of these matters. Firstly, Amanda's attendance at the questura is not the issue. The issue is that she was taken into an interrogation after her arrival.

The day before she was effectively accused of lying; the day before that her phone was bugged and the day before that the police began to suspect her of criminal involvement in Kercher's death. So, on the evening of the 5th she was a suspect before her interrogation began. The intention that night was for the police to get her to tell them what "they already knew".

As for the lawyerless interview itself, you will agree that the point she incriminated herself came before she signed her first statement. So, why is she being given statements to sign without a lawyer present notwithstanding the fact that a lawyer should have been present from the beginning?

The interview was not suspended at all. What happened next was a further attempt to circumvent the law in an effort to procure an admissible second statement by disguising a continuing interview as a "spontaneous" statement with Mignini entering the scene to continue the questioning while faking the role of scribe to Amanda's apparently never ending utterances. He will have concluded that the courts would not accept her first statement but could be persuaded to accept the second if he said that she talked and he listened.

Amanda's actions could only have been voluntary if they had taken place with the advice of counsel or in the light of a valid waiver of her rights, neither of which applies here. As you say, a lawyer would have advised her of her right to silence. It was denied her.
 
Vixen said:
Dr Gill supports the defense, so is not impartial and objective.

If you analyse his hypothesis, it is astonishingly vapid. If Dr Gill is to be believed, DNA evidence is not valid if the murderer lives in the same household, even if the murderer's blood is mixed in with the victim's.

How fortuitous for the defense, given Amanda's blood was all over the faucet, mixed with Mez' immediately after the murder. Nice one!
Click to expand...

There was no mixed blood and Amanda's was not "all over the faucet".

What Gill pointed out is obvious - you expect to find the DNA of people who lived together in the common areas of the place in which they lived. Just because a murder has taken place does not make its discovery probative.

Merely because Gill's analysis supported the defence's position doesn't mean he isn't impartial. He had no dog in the fight. On the other hand, Balding might not be thought so impartial. One can argue that the reason why the Italian Forensic Institute went to him in the first place was because he had been flogging the notion of the value of LCN DNA found at crime scenes whereas other laboratory based forensic scientists in the UK (Balding is not lab based), for example Jamieson, have been warning of the dangers of interpretation. When Balding was interviewed for the Vogt BBC documentary about it, he over reached.
 
Kauffer said:
There was no mixed blood and Amanda's was not "all over the faucet".
What Gill pointed out is obvious - you expect to find the DNA of people who lived together in the common areas of the place in which they lived. Just because a murder has taken place does not make its discovery probative.

Merely because Gill's analysis supported the defence's position doesn't mean he isn't impartial. He had no dog in the fight. On the other hand, Balding might not be thought so impartial. One can argue that the reason why the Italian Forensic Institute went to him in the first place was because he had been flogging the notion of the value of LCN DNA found at crime scenes whereas other laboratory based forensic scientists in the UK (Balding is not lab based), for example Jamieson, have been warning of the dangers of interpretation. When Balding was interviewed for the Vogt BBC documentary about it, he over reached.
Click to expand...


Yes, it was.

http://themurderofmeredithkercher.c...allbathroomtap.jpg/225px-Smallbathroomtap.jpg
 
Vixen said:
Yes, it was.

http://themurderofmeredithkercher.c...allbathroomtap.jpg/225px-Smallbathroomtap.jpg
Click to expand...

If you look at a larger image
Sink2.jpg

There is a single spot
Most of what you see in the small image is reflected light, much clearer if you play with gamma and brightness.
Only place where there is a spot is right side of the faucet. Could be from spitting out after brushing teeth or from a ear bleeding.
 
Last edited:
Status
Not open for further replies.

Back
Top Bottom