Continuation Part 19: Amanda Knox/Raffaele Sollecito

[LondonJohn]

That is something I never heard about. . . .Somebody else want to tell me what Vixen is talking about if there is any truth to it?

Well, presuming the word in question is supposed to be "abandoned" and not "abandonned", this is the usual mixture of BS and hyperbole - fuelled seemingly by some sort of irrational hatred of Knox - that we've come to know and love from this particular poster.

According to Knox's book (which, together with her defunct Myspace entries, is the only source we have for this story), Knox was travelling on a train with her sister Deanna a few days before getting to Perugia, when they met up with a guy who Knox referred to as "Cristiano". According to Knox's account, all three (Amanda, her sister Deanna, and Cristiano) got off the train in Florence. Cristiano intended to catch a bus onwards to Rimini, but missed his connection, and ended up getting a room in the same hotel as the Knox sisters. All three had dinner together (pizza and wine), but Amanda and Cristiano were (clearly, by Knox's account) getting on very well, and it was Deanna who announced after dinner that she was going off to bed. Amanda and Cristiano then took a walk together, and then went to his hotel room where they fooled around but didn't spend the night together.

So, by the only account we have, it was Deanna who opted out of the evening to leave Amanda and Cristiano together. It was not Amanda who "abandoned" Deanna. In addition, the term "little sister" is of course used pejoratively by Vixen to imply that Deanna was some sort of vulnerable minor. Rather, Deanna Knox was 18 years old at the time of this incident (and Amanda Knox was 20).

So, all in all, a nasty misrepresentation from Vixen. Yet another one.

 

[Desert Fox]

It has been something like a year since I read the book and did not remember that incident. Nothing about the situation sounds all that strange though.

You see this in some many cases where everything, no matter how normal, is looked at as suspicious.

 

[Bill Williams]

It has been something like a year since I read the book and did not remember that incident. Nothing about the situation sounds all that strange though.

You see this in some many cases where everything, no matter how normal, is looked at as suspicious.

Vixen also used the word "prostitute" upthread, although by the context is is unclear if it was meant to be a direct slut-shaming of Knox. IIRC Vixen wanted to know if we approved of prostitutes, cocaine-heads, and people of low morals.

This is all part of the meme, once pushed by Machiavelli, that Knox consorted with drug dealers, and even had the mobile-number for one in her cellphone.

The underlying structure of their narrative is to make these fantastic claims one minute - she abandoned here little sister - then the next minute use that factoid to buttress some other fantastic claim. By the 8th generation/iteration of this process you get "murder", "your sweet angel" and all sorts of other non sequitors.

Meanwhile, back at the story LondonJohn outlined, which is the sum total of it....

If every spontaneous fling (that they may have regretted in the morning) that every young American woman made on every exotic trip to Italy when they were young and brash resulted in murder (which is, after all, the sole point for trying to inflate these stories!), then Italy would have to declare their airspace a no-fly zone for US air-carriers. WWII would never have ended, not in the Mediterranean in any event.

What ever happened to looking at the most immediate area surrounding the most immediate part of the crime-scene (the bedroom) and working one's way out? Of course this includes the whole cottage..... but then if true then the prosecution case is a donut.

I knew we'd get to this variation of sex-on-a-train sooner or later. It comes around in this thread every six months.

 

[Grinder]

Though neither side will agree I see the same type of assertions from both sides albeit one side is much more personal and nasty. The crime wave of Rudi, though possible and not ruled out, is based on speculation and hyperbole. His previous crimes actually known to us is possession of stolen goods and sleeping in an nursery that he wasn't in with permission e.g. trespassing. Testimony of CT states that he believes the home invader was Rudi but is not positive. The testimony of both Curatolo and Quintavalle is much more positive but most here rightfully reject their testimony. I also reject CT's. In addition to his lack of certainty it is difficult for me to believe that he didn't know Rudi from the clubs and the streets and should have recognized him in his place.

When CT's testimony is compared to Nina's account the differences should make people question her accuracy but that doesn't seem to be the case. She also has differences with her account of Del Prato. All of which make that more skeptical of her account of the Diaz fire.

Did Amanda have a noise ticket? She absolutely did and it is a common occurrence here in Seattle. Did she punch a boy that was bothering her little sister when they were young kids? Yes. Did she pull a dumb prank in college? Yes at least one, though not the rape prank so long a favorite of the PGP.

Her behaviors along with Raf's alibi waffle need to put in context and connected to the case to have any weight and the PGP just can't do that, just as they can't make a timeline that works with the facts they tout.

ETA - the idea that Raf couldn't know if Amanda left during the night doesn't match up with his statement of the 6th. He clearly isn't talking about the night of the first. If he is talking about that night, then he is telling ********s.

 

[Bill Williams]

ETA - the idea that Raf couldn't know if Amanda left during the night doesn't match up with his statement of the 6th. He clearly isn't talking about the night of the first. If he is talking about that night, then he is telling ********s.

Raffaele's statement on the 6th is useless, since it made no distinction between the 31st of Oct and Nov 1st - it was conflating evenings.

And why not. Given that we're into recycling old stuff let's remind everyone what an interrogation is.

The one thing that an interrogation is not, is a search for truth or an interview with people informed of the facts.

An interrogation is known by its goal - confession. Courts have ruled in most countries that it is legal for police to lie to achieve that goal.

And it is not just any confession - its intent is to get the interrogatee to confess to the narrative that the cops already know. In fact, the Reid Technique is specific that the interrogator is to actively steer the assumed-perp away from ANY innocence talk.

So - as it relates to Raffaele - the proof is that Raffaele was denied a chance to clear up his conflation of the two nights - one which Amanda went out, the other where she stayed in. Acc. to Raffaele he, on the 5th/6th really couldn't separate Oct 30, when Amanda went out to work. To him there was no reason to remember until pressed.

As soon as they collected his Nikes and took his pocket knife, he should have been given a lawyer. They should have flipped the switch on the mandatory recording of the interrogation. That Raffaele first saw a lawyer on th 8th as he was going in front of Mattieni says all one needs to know about what the cops were doing.

They were getting both of them to confess to the details of a crime that the PLE already knew. The cased which they bragged was closed before those pesky forensics came in.

 

[LondonJohn]

ETA - the idea that Raf couldn't know if Amanda left during the night doesn't match up with his statement of the 6th. He clearly isn't talking about the night of the first. If he is talking about that night, then he is telling ********s.

All the supporting evidence suggests that in the course of his 5th/6th November police interrogation, Sollecito got thoroughly confused between the night of the murder (1st/2nd November) and the previous night (31st October/1st November). There is also evidence that he was denied access to a calendar to help him clarify the dates.

So it's reasonable to suppose that in essence Sollecito was mistakenly recounting details from the night before the murder (i.e. Halloween night) in his 5th/6th November interrogation. I think it's also critically important to remember that the police would have been forcefully telling Sollecito that they "knew" that Knox had been involved in the murder, and urging him to give her up. It's pretty obvious that this sort of police pressure could easily have caused Sollecito to confuse the night when Knox really had gone out without him (Halloween night) with the night of the murder (when he and Knox had stayed in).

Basically, on 5th/6th November, the police required Sollecito to "stop covering for Knox". The police/PM thought they had solved this murder, remember. They "knew" that Knox had met up with the person with whom she'd exchanged text messages (it's unclear whether or not they knew this person to be Lumumba at that point, or only during Knox's subsequent interrogation that night). So they were certain in their own minds that Sollecito simply had to be lying to protect her when he'd previously stated that he and Knox stayed in at his place all night (or, worse still, that Sollecito was lying to protect both Knox and himself, and he himself was also involved in the murder).

As I've stated before, it's my very strong opinion that the police and PM constructed a clear linear strategy for the night of 5th/6th November. I believe they wanted to bring Sollecito in first, alone. They would then get him to "admit" that Knox had in fact left his apartment on the night of the murder. This would give them sufficient cause to rush out with lights and sirens (and a handy phone call to local friendly newspapers and TV stations), and arrest Knox under the glare of photographers' cameras and TV lights. Then in turn they would confront Knox with Sollecito's changed story, and (together with other *unorthodox* interrogation techniques...) they would get Knox to admit to her role in the murder.

Part One of this strategy was to get Sollecito to admit that Knox had left him (and his apartment) on the night of the murder. It's reasonable to suppose that the interrogators would have been putting a considerable amount of pressure on Sollecito to make this admission. And IMO it's therefore reasonable to suppose that this was a key factor in Sollecito becoming confused between the night of the murder and the previous night (Halloween).

Once Sollecito got space to think properly, he realised that what he'd told the police on 5th/6th November was incorrect, and was the result of the police pressure and his memory lapse under that pressure. He reaffirmed his memory of him and Knox spending the night of 1st/2nd November entirely within his apartment (with the important caveat that he couldn't say with total certainty that Knox had been in his apartment all night, since he had been dozing/sleeping for a good part of that night, and he obviously couldn't therefore be totally certain that Knox didn't sneak out of his apartment while he was dozing/sleeping then sneak back in again before he woke again - though he pointed out that it was his very strong belief that Knox spent the entire night inside his apartment with him).

 

[Desert Fox]

Though neither side will agree I see the same type of assertions from both sides albeit one side is much more personal and nasty. The crime wave of Rudi, though possible and not ruled out, is based on speculation and hyperbole. His previous crimes actually known to us is possession of stolen goods and sleeping in an nursery that he wasn't in with permission e.g. trespassing. Testimony of CT states that he believes the home invader was Rudi but is not positive. The testimony of both Curatolo and Quintavalle is much more positive but most here rightfully reject their testimony. I also reject CT's. In addition to his lack of certainty it is difficult for me to believe that he didn't know Rudi from the clubs and the streets and should have recognized him in his place.

When CT's testimony is compared to Nina's account the differences should make people question her accuracy but that doesn't seem to be the case. She also has differences with her account of Del Prato. All of which make that more skeptical of her account of the Diaz fire.

Did Amanda have a noise ticket? She absolutely did and it is a common occurrence here in Seattle. Did she punch a boy that was bothering her little sister when they were young kids? Yes. Did she pull a dumb prank in college? Yes at least one, though not the rape prank so long a favorite of the PGP.

Her behaviors along with Raf's alibi waffle need to put in context and connected to the case to have any weight and the PGP just can't do that, just as they can't make a timeline that works with the facts they tout.

ETA - the idea that Raf couldn't know if Amanda left during the night doesn't match up with his statement of the 6th. He clearly isn't talking about the night of the first. If he is talking about that night, then he is telling ********s.

Grinder, the thing is that the "crime wave" is an attempt for us to understand why he was in the house. I don't think he was there at first to rape and murder Meredeth but just to rob the place.

Based on him appearing to stay a long time instead of just running with some stuff, I do thing there was some mental illness but that does not really matter either.

The only evidence we have indicates that Guede committed the murder and rape (or sexual assault if you prefer) on his own. His motivation for being in the house does not actually really matter much because of that.

Guede could have robbed 500 homes (I don't think he had) and no matter what that would not be evidence of murder. Most robbers would never dream of raping and murdering someone.

 

[Grinder]

Unfortunately the statements Raf made before the 6th haven't been released.

Amanda clearly understood that she was being questioned more intensely than others and felt they suspected her of something.

It is very hard to believe that the couple never discussed what they were being asked and discussed what they had been doing when Meredith was killed. Amanda has mentioned many a time that it could have been her and for me that would lead into a if I hadn't been here sort of conversation.

Whereas I can't tell what I was doing exactly last Thursday night I sure can remember exactly what I did last night and the night before. I can certainly see that Raf needing a calendar seemed very odd to the police.

From the Wiki on the Reid technique it seems clear they didn't use it.

The core principles of the Reid Technique are:

1. Always conduct interviews and interrogations in accordance with the guidelines established by the courts
2. Do not make any promises of leniency
3. Do not threaten the subject with any physical harm or inevitable consequences
4. Do not deny the subject any of their rights
5. Do not deny the subject the opportunity to satisfy their physical needs
6. Always treat the subject with dignity and respect

It is very difficult for me to believe that the kids had no idea they were at some level or another suspects and it is equally hard to believe they had never been asked by the police what they were doing that night.

Raf gave a similar account to Mansey and I'm absolutely sure she wasn't using the Reid technique or really any technique that made him blurt out mistaken recollections.

Personally I think that the evidence and their histories don't show psychotic patterns but spaced out ditsy patterns.

I can't believe that they didn't have a conversation of what if "I had to work and Popovic needed your help and I had gone home instead of us staying here and having dinner and spending the night together."

But perhaps it was just a brilliant strategy to get everything mixed up to make clear they hadn't worked out their alibi together.

 

[Bill Williams]

Grinder - you've neglected to show the 9 steps of the Reid Technique. Steps 2 and 3 are relevant here:

Step 2 - Try to shift the blame away from the suspect to some other person or set of circumstances that prompted the suspect to commit the crime. That is, develop themes containing reasons that will psychologically justify or excuse the crime. Themes may be developed or changed to find one to which the accused is most responsive.
Step 3 - Try to discourage the suspect from denying his or her guilt. Reid training video: "If you’ve let him talk and say the words ‘I didn’t do it’[...]the more difficult it is to get a confession."

Note the goal - confession. Note a strategy towards that goal. Don't give them opportunity to talk about anything else other than how they might be involved.

This is exactly what translator Anna Donnino said she tried to mediate between Ficarra and Knox - how Knox might have been involved

 

[Grinder]

Grinder - you've neglected to show the 9 steps of the Reid Technique. Steps 2 and 3 are relevant here:

Step 2 - Try to shift the blame away from the suspect to some other person or set of circumstances that prompted the suspect to commit the crime. That is, develop themes containing reasons that will psychologically justify or excuse the crime. Themes may be developed or changed to find one to which the accused is most responsive.
Step 3 - Try to discourage the suspect from denying his or her guilt. Reid training video: "If you’ve let him talk and say the words ‘I didn’t do it’[...]the more difficult it is to get a confession."

Note the goal - confession. Note a strategy towards that goal. Don't give them opportunity to talk about anything else other than how they might be involved.

This is exactly what translator Anna Donnino said she tried to mediate between Ficarra and Knox - how Knox might have been involved

The Reid technique's nine steps of interrogation are:[3]

Step 1 - Direct confrontation. Advise the subject that the evidence has led the police to the individual as a suspect. Offer the person an early opportunity to explain why the offense took place.
Step 2 - Try to shift the blame away from the suspect to some other person or set of circumstances that prompted the suspect to commit the crime. That is, develop themes containing reasons that will psychologically justify or excuse the crime. Themes may be developed or changed to find one to which the accused is most responsive.
Step 3 - Try to discourage the suspect from denying his or her guilt. Reid training video: "If you’ve let him talk and say the words ‘I didn’t do it’[...]the more difficult it is to get a confession."[citation needed]
Step 4 - At this point, the accused will often give a reason why he or she did not or could not commit the crime. Try to use this to move towards the confession.
Step 5 - Reinforce sincerity to ensure that the suspect is receptive.
Step 6 - The suspect will become quieter and listen. Move the theme discussion towards offering alternatives. If the suspect cries at this point, infer guilt.
Step 7 - Pose the “alternative question”, giving two choices for what happened; one more socially acceptable than the other. The suspect is expected to choose the easier option but whichever alternative the suspect chooses, guilt is admitted. There is always a third option which is to maintain that they did not commit the crime.
Step 8 - Lead the suspect to repeat the admission of guilt in front of witnesses and develop corroborating information to establish the validity of the confession.
Step 9 - Document the suspect's admission or confession and have him or her prepare a recorded statement (audio, video or written).​

Still doesn't look like they used the Reid technique. They may have used elements of it but I'm sure all interviews of the nature employ some form of these.

You have discussed the Reid technique numerous times and it is well known that the technique has widely been criticized but do you have any statistics of success and failure of the technique? False versus valid confessions. If not please no anecdotals. I know that it has been validly criticized in specific cases.

 

[Grinder]

Grinder, the thing is that the "crime wave" is an attempt for us to understand why he was in the house. I don't think he was there at first to rape and murder Meredeth but just to rob the place.

I think the crime wave goes further than that. It is intended to demonstrate that Rudi was a well known burglar and the PLE knew of him and his techniques. It is also used to demonstrate that he was spinning out of control and escalated his crime rapidly on the way to rape and murder.

The Diaz case is central as a cat was killed and he stole an older woman's precious heirloom watch. The story also has him burglarizing the house of someone he knew which was a central reason Massei said the burglary was staged. Lay the case made by Nina against Massei's thinking and it appears like a defense point by point refutation of that thinking.

Based on him appearing to stay a long time instead of just running with some stuff, I do thing there was some mental illness but that does not really matter either.

I have no idea how a pattern of staying in a burglary site factors. Is it very unusual or somewhat common?

The only evidence we have indicates that Guede committed the murder and rape (or sexual assault if you prefer) on his own. His motivation for being in the house does not actually really matter much because of that.

Yes if we ignore the presence of Koko someone that most likely knew Rudi at least a little and was later convicted of dealing coke and came from Albania the source of the local drug cartel. Albanian drug dealer just happens to be by the cottage during the murder and then inexplicably goes to the police with a fantastic story. If people would wipe away all the noise and just look at this unbelievable coincidence, most people would think he was involved in some way.

Guede could have robbed 500 homes (I don't think he had) and no matter what that would not be evidence of murder. Most robbers would never dream of raping and murdering someone.

But what about a heartless cat killer that burgled his elderly neighbor's house?

 

[Desert Fox]

Grinder, I am not going to answer your entire post at present but just wanted to answer one item.

Long ago, I read an book of interviews with police officers. Now, they did make some errors and one could see some serious prejudice in some of their stuff.

However, several went on record with the statement that burgers who stay at the crime scene for any length of the time tend to graduate to other more serious crimes such as rape.

 

[Grinder]

Grinder, I am not going to answer your entire post at present but just wanted to answer one item.

Long ago, I read an book of interviews with police officers. Now, they did make some errors and one could see some serious prejudice in some of their stuff.

However, several went on record with the statement that burgers who stay at the crime scene for any length of the time tend to graduate to other more serious crimes such as rape.

Sounds like the same school of thought that believe women that meet a man on a train and have sex later have a personality disorder.

Are these the same type of officers that can tell by observing behavior if a person has committed a crime?

I'm sure that burglars that lay in wait of the residents returning have a higher propensity to commit more serious crimes.

 

[Bill Williams]

The Reid technique's nine steps of interrogation are:[3]

Step 1 - Direct confrontation. Advise the subject that the evidence has led the police to the individual as a suspect. Offer the person an early opportunity to explain why the offense took place.
Step 2 - Try to shift the blame away from the suspect to some other person or set of circumstances that prompted the suspect to commit the crime. That is, develop themes containing reasons that will psychologically justify or excuse the crime. Themes may be developed or changed to find one to which the accused is most responsive.
Step 3 - Try to discourage the suspect from denying his or her guilt. Reid training video: "If you’ve let him talk and say the words ‘I didn’t do it’[...]the more difficult it is to get a confession."[citation needed]
Step 4 - At this point, the accused will often give a reason why he or she did not or could not commit the crime. Try to use this to move towards the confession.
Step 5 - Reinforce sincerity to ensure that the suspect is receptive.
Step 6 - The suspect will become quieter and listen. Move the theme discussion towards offering alternatives. If the suspect cries at this point, infer guilt.
Step 7 - Pose the “alternative question”, giving two choices for what happened; one more socially acceptable than the other. The suspect is expected to choose the easier option but whichever alternative the suspect chooses, guilt is admitted. There is always a third option which is to maintain that they did not commit the crime.
Step 8 - Lead the suspect to repeat the admission of guilt in front of witnesses and develop corroborating information to establish the validity of the confession.
Step 9 - Document the suspect's admission or confession and have him or her prepare a recorded statement (audio, video or written).​

Still doesn't look like they used the Reid technique. They may have used elements of it but I'm sure all interviews of the nature employ some form of these.

You have discussed the Reid technique numerous times and it is well known that the technique has widely been criticized but do you have any statistics of success and failure of the technique? False versus valid confessions. If not please no anecdotals. I know that it has been validly criticized in specific cases.

Sorry - at this point I'm not trying to convince anyone. Just trying to put it out there. If none of this schmecks for you, that's okay with me.

Anecdotally - the technique is highly discouraged for the young who are being interrogated. It yields way, too many false confessions. There was one case in Regina, Saskatchewan, where the technique was used on a teen-age boy to confess to a series of rapes. He confessed.

Before it got to trial he was cleared. When asked why he'd confessed he said, "They wear you down. I got to the point where I thought to myself, oh heck, I'll just say I did it. I have no idea why I said it, except that they just keep coming at you."

Sorry, today all I have is anecdote.

I have no idea, and less actual data, to say that the PLE were trained in the technique. You very well could be correct, that Reid simply incorporated well known elements and put his stamp on it with a view to selling his training videos to police forces.

For the purposes here, it is telling that these elements are in common:

- Assume the guilt of the person being interrogated (or else, why're they there to begin with?)

- discourage any talk of their innocence.

- help them with scenarios which implicate them

- it is permissible to lie to the perp. "Themes may be developed or changed to find one to which the accused is most responsive."

(I once had amnesia after a traumatic episode when I broke my leg. Maybe that's what you have which is causing you to forget. Try to imagine what might have happened.....)​

- an eventual confession is the goal. It actually does not matter how you get there. Get them to confess. Their legal-lives will be miserable for the next 20 years because you wear them down at interrogation.​

Anyone who needs more than this has all the pointers they need. The point is not to mark the PLE as if it were an exam on their abilities within the Reid Technique. Forget the technique if that is getting in the way....

.... the manipulative elements of the actual 5th/6th interrogation are all there.

 

[Bill Williams]

Step 9 - Document the suspect's admission or confession and have him or her prepare a recorded statement (audio, video or written).[/INDENT][/I]

As an aside, Step 9 was the key one in convicting the Central Park Five. Despite there being very shaky evidence, what convicted the five was the "summary confession" that the NYPolice insisted each make - a statement of their guilt filmed after the interrogation was complete for each.

As one of the Central Park Five said, reflecting on the trial - it didn't matter that the facts of the case made no sense, at the end of the day there I was giving evidence against myself.

I'd like to think that no competent defence attorney at-interrogation would allow Step 9 to take place.

 

[bagels]

Yes if we ignore the presence of Koko someone that most likely knew Rudi at least a little and was later convicted of dealing coke and came from Albania the source of the local drug cartel. Albanian drug dealer just happens to be by the cottage during the murder and then inexplicably goes to the police with a fantastic story. If people would wipe away all the noise and just look at this unbelievable coincidence, most people would think he was involved in some way.

I agree it's an odd coincidence. But the police taking reference prints and DNA from a known criminal in the vicinity of the cottage on the night of a murder would be too productive they needed his important testimony about olive throwing from honors exchange students.

I think Rudy could have done everything by himself but I guess we'll never know for sure.

As we discussed before I absolutely agree Raffaele didn't make a particularly smart move when he decided to give up Amanda during the interrogation. But I tend to believe him when he says the police threatened to beat him to a bloody pulp for protecting her, and that he thought he was cutting his losses with a girl he just met and the police seemed to insist was involved with the crime in some way.

Raffaele quickly dropping her alibi is compatible with a number of theories, but a Raffaele + Amanda murder theory seems the least compatible IMO.

Raffaele and Amanda are innocent but the police threaten him with prison, and say they'll beat him to a pulp if he doesn't agree it's possible she went out that night? Makes sense.

Raffaele is guilty and Amanda is innocent, and Raffaele gives the police a woman who can say nothing and knows nothing? Maybe possible.

Raffaele and Amanda are guilty of murder and rape of a woman and Raffaele gives the police a ~110 pound girl who knows where the knife collecting strong young male has stored the bloody kitchen knife while she screams about how defenseless she was? The least compatible theory.

 

[Grinder]

I agree it's an odd coincidence. But the police taking reference prints and DNA from a known criminal in the vicinity of the cottage on the night of a murder would be too productive they needed his important testimony about olive throwing from honors exchange students.

I think Rudy could have done everything by himself but I guess we'll never know for sure.

Thanks for the thoughtful response. Could Rudi have done it alone? Sure.

What I'm trying to emphasize is how this would look if the noise around it was missing. Just imagine for this drill that the kids had an iron clad alibi. The PLE are left with just Rudi but still feel the break in done alone was a problematic, etc. Then they discover the phone pings or even more suspiciously Koko comes along with some fantastic story about being there that night. I think most everybody would be looking hard at Koko being involved.

As we discussed before I absolutely agree Raffaele didn't make a particularly smart move when he decided to give up Amanda during the interrogation. But I tend to believe him when he says the police threatened to beat him to a bloody pulp for protecting her, and that he thought he was cutting his losses with a girl he just met and the police seemed to insist was involved with the crime in some way.

I wish we had his earlier statements.

Raffaele quickly dropping her alibi is compatible with a number of theories, but a Raffaele + Amanda murder theory seems the least compatible IMO.
Raffaele and Amanda are innocent but the police threaten him with prison, and say they'll beat him to a pulp if he doesn't agree it's possible she went out that night? Makes sense.

Agreed and certainly the way the PLE laid it out.

Raffaele is guilty and Amanda is innocent, and Raffaele gives the police a woman who can say nothing and knows nothing? Maybe possible.

By far the most likely scenario involving either of them. He slipped her a little Xanax and she remembers nothing.

Raffaele and Amanda are guilty of murder and rape of a woman and Raffaele gives the police a ~110 pound girl who knows where the knife collecting strong young male has stored the bloody kitchen knife while she screams about how defenseless she was? The least compatible theory.

I don't quite follow this.

 

[bagels]

I don't quite follow this.

Probably a bit too much Thanksgiving wine on my part

It makes little sense that Raffaele would immediately turn over his accomplice to the police when she would just blame the whole thing on him and knows the precise location where his murder weapon is.

 

[Grinder]

Probably a bit too much Thanksgiving wine on my part

It makes little sense that Raffaele would immediately turn over his accomplice to the police when she would just blame the whole thing on him and knows the precise location where his murder weapon is.

Ah so. Now I get it. Yes, much like Amanda wouldn't finger Patrick after studiously leaving Rudi's evidence behind.

Yes, it is another of the PGP fails. That's why I was asking Vixen what it would indicate if Raf did say Amanda went out or he couldn't give her an alibi. At a minimum it would mean that only one of them could be involved. Why would Raf give up his alibi if he were involved? And if they were both involved clearly he couldn't think she would go to jail without spilling the beans.

 

[Vixen]

How many women will meet a guy in bar in the next week and have sex that night with him? How many of those women will murder someone in their lifetime? Is it better to meet someone in a bar than on a train?

Did Deanna travel alone in Europe or was she a young child?

How many partners can one have and not be a murderer?

Logical fallacies. Look at it this way: how many cold-blooded murderers do not have a personality disorder? This is the correct question to beg, for the answer is, only an inhuman monster, or a damaged individual.