Continuation Part 19: Amanda Knox/Raffaele Sollecito

[Bill Williams]

Amanda has all the evidence of being groomed by her PR. In her statements at the questura, she said she understood the police were under stress and only doing their job. In her Prison Diary she herself wrote she hadn't been beaten up by anyone. She was groomed to make all sorts of claims as a form of innocence fraud. The reality is, it was a bog standard murder investigation enquiry. These are hard-nosed cops not airline cabin crew.

Innocence fraud? Where do you come up with this stuff.

Both she and Sollecito were acquitted. Since Italy regards all people charged with crimes to be innocent - at every step of their process - until the final, definitive ruling of Cassation.....

..... they were never anything other than innocent.

What's with these silly terms, "innocence fraud"? Your argument since March 2015 is not with anyone other than the Italian Supreme Court and the judiciary there.

 

[bagels]

Amanda has all the evidence of being groomed by her PR. In her statements at the questura, she said she understood the police were under stress and only doing their job. In her Prison Diary she herself wrote she hadn't been beaten up by anyone. She was groomed to make all sorts of claims as a form of innocence fraud. The reality is, it was a bog standard murder investigation enquiry. These are hard-nosed cops not airline cabin crew.

Amanda wrote she was hit and yelled at before she spoke to another soul. These are pampered middle class Seattle suburb kids not hard nosed criminals. The police jumping to conclusions had them doing a spectacular job of breaking a weak girl with no information to give, which is why the interrogation resulted in zero information except that which the police (wrongly) concluded to be the truth about what happened.

 

[Vixen]

Heck - even Machiavelli argued at length as to why a narrative of the crime was not even necessary.

Of course many of us saw that as a cop out - a way of avoiding dealing with the issue. I hesitate to speak for Machiavelli (!), but his position seemed to be that as long as one could knit together enough "facts", no matter how strong those facts were, and even if those facts were mere reasonable conjectures of the prosecution - unrefuted by the defence..... and even if they only matter to one of the possible time-lines.....

..... than that's enough to convict. For Machiavelli it was irrelevant, for instance, that Quintavalle only offered I.D. evidence a year later. Who cares that he was asked the week of the original investigation and said nothing.

It's the fact that a year later he claimed to have seen someone matching Knox's appearance. For Machiaveli that is enough to throw it into the osmotic consideration regardless of how likely it is, regardless of contradictions.

Also, it matters not that non-blood DNA might have been found on the knife - the fact is that it belonged to Meredith. If one wants to suggest contamination, then it's up to detractors/defence to prove it.

Add up enough of these non-entities and, so they say, it is safe to convict.

But Machiavelli was clear - a coherent narrative of the crime is not necessary; as long as there is a place for each item of speculation along one of the possible time-lines.

Quintavalle did not describe the clothes Amanda was wearing outside the cottage, white skirt, etc (BTW where WAS Amanda's coat, that she had to borrow Raff's?) He described accurately, the clothes police found lying on her bed; facts he could not have known before the trial.

The problem with innocence fraud is that in the mind of an innocence fraudster, "every cop is a criminal" - Jodi Arias' scribblings are full of this type of stuff, how all the jurors except the rogue one who saved her from the death sentence, were - surprise, surprise - all thoroughly corrupt.

 

[Bill Williams]

The police are by no means perfect, but I believe the did they best they could within their limited resources. Sure, some were going for glory, others were probably bullies; some may have been corrupt, but I am confident 99% of them resolutely followed the police code of ethical conduct.

There is no evidence the police were corrupt. Donnino was probably acting outside of her remit as she is not a detective. But hey, she didn't know Amanda was suddenly going to blurt out a confession of being there and witnessing the crime.

Vixen - you are entitled to your beliefs. Fair enough.

What no one is entitled to is anything other than the evidence.

You are perhaps correct, that Donnino had no idea that Amanda, "was suddenly going to blurt out a confession of being there and witnessing the crime."

But at the very least consider the evidence. When Donnino arrived at 12:30 she said she had arrived into a situation that was out of control. Whatever it was she meant by it, it was clear to her that Ficarra was responsible for a chaotic scene in the interrogation room.

Donnino's response? (Remember, Donnino had been called in as a translator/interpreter.) Anna Donnino said she thought she could be more helpful as a "mediator", whatever that is. Indeed, with her story told to Knox about how people forget things, it was clear that someone in the room was trying to get Knox to remember something that the cops thought would solve the crime.

The evidence seems to be that instead of translating Knox's words, Donnino was actively trying to get Knox to remember something, that the cops were insisting she remember.

When Knox "broke", isn't it even a little bit suspicious to you that she broke, "telling us what we already knew to be true"?

It's too bad that we cannot simply consult/replay the **mandatory** transcript/videotape. It's too bad we cannot ask Knox's own lawyer who was **mandated** to be there according to the very law Mignini himself quoted.

The police code of ethical conduct in Italy was that someone facing what Knox faced needed a competent translator, not a mediator - she needed a lawyer, and the whole thing needed to have been videotaped, if not transcribed.

So you rate their actions as at 99%? My math says that they violated three out of three, meaning 0% on that measure.

 

[Desert Fox]

Amanda wrote she was hit and yelled at before she spoke to another soul. These are pampered middle class Seattle suburb kids not hard nosed criminals. The police jumping to conclusions had them doing a spectacular job of breaking a weak girl with no information to give, which is why the interrogation resulted in zero information except that which the police (wrongly) concluded to be the truth about what happened.

A good interrogation (and I consider interrogations to be a lazy cop's tool) should result in information that only the perpetrator should know. There was none of the with Amanda.

 

[Bill Williams]

The problem with innocence fraud is that in the mind of an innocence fraudster, "every cop is a criminal" - Jodi Arias' scribblings are full of this type of stuff, how all the jurors except the rogue one who saved her from the death sentence, were - surprise, surprise - all thoroughly corrupt.

Please answer the question. Considering that Italian law not only now considers her innocent - it was a status she went into the trials with, and acc. to Italian law she never had to forfeit...... so neither she nor Raffaele were ever at any time guilty of murder......

In what sense is this "innocence fraud"? Are you calling Marasca and Bruno criminals?

 

[Vixen]

Little sister Deanna is 1 year younger than Amanda.

Vixen, please quit with the lies . . .

OK, so she was eighteen. So we should assume she's from a background where no-one's a virgin over the age of 17. So that's OK, then.

 

[Vixen]

That is just because Amanda is so good at covering things up. . . .Right now she is planning another murder and plans to get everything perfect this time.

If you have someone who planned and executed a horrific murder in cold blood of a harmless innocent young woman outnumbered by at least two, maybe three, and then cons his or her way out of being convicted., I think you should be worried such an unconsionable person is on the loose.

 

[Vixen]

The reason why they released him was because there was a witness whom they could not impugn whom indicated that he was not involved. Otherwise, I will bet that they would have argue in court that he was involved as well.

The big advantage of being innocent, is that you tend to have an alibi that is verifiable.

 

[Vixen]

Amanda wrote she was hit and yelled at before she spoke to another soul. These are pampered middle class Seattle suburb kids not hard nosed criminals. The police jumping to conclusions had them doing a spectacular job of breaking a weak girl with no information to give, which is why the interrogation resulted in zero information except that which the police (wrongly) concluded to be the truth about what happened.

Make up your mind. A while ago someone was arguing Amanda's sister was not a naive young innocent, but someone streetwise who'd probably been around the block a few times, like her sister and therefore no problem about the cocaine dealer train pick-up. Now you are saying pampered middle class suburb kids are nice girls.

It's important to note that sociopathy is no respecter of class, age or gender, cf the 14 year old American school girl who took pot shots at her classmates and teachers because, "I don't like Mondays".

 

[Bill Williams]

OK, so she was eighteen. So we should assume she's from a background where no-one's a virgin over the age of 17. So that's OK, then.

Huh!? Is this an awkward attempt at slut-shaming?

 

[Vixen]

Vixen - you are entitled to your beliefs. Fair enough.

What no one is entitled to is anything other than the evidence.

You are perhaps correct, that Donnino had no idea that Amanda, "was suddenly going to blurt out a confession of being there and witnessing the crime."

But at the very least consider the evidence. When Donnino arrived at 12:30 she said she had arrived into a situation that was out of control. Whatever it was she meant by it, it was clear to her that Ficarra was responsible for a chaotic scene in the interrogation room.

Donnino's response? (Remember, Donnino had been called in as a translator/interpreter.) Anna Donnino said she thought she could be more helpful as a "mediator", whatever that is. Indeed, with her story told to Knox about how people forget things, it was clear that someone in the room was trying to get Knox to remember something that the cops thought would solve the crime.

The evidence seems to be that instead of translating Knox's words, Donnino was actively trying to get Knox to remember something, that the cops were insisting she remember.

When Knox "broke", isn't it even a little bit suspicious to you that she broke, "telling us what we already knew to be true"?

It's too bad that we cannot simply consult/replay the **mandatory** transcript/videotape. It's too bad we cannot ask Knox's own lawyer who was **mandated** to be there according to the very law Mignini himself quoted.

The police code of ethical conduct in Italy was that someone facing what Knox faced needed a competent translator, not a mediator - she needed a lawyer, and the whole thing needed to have been videotaped, if not transcribed.

So you rate their actions as at 99%? My math says that they violated three out of three, meaning 0% on that measure.

If someone walks into a police station of their own accord and wants to blurt out incriminating statements, that's their responsibility. As Amanda was not questioned as a suspect, there is no onus on the police to shut them up.

 

[Bill Williams]

The big advantage of being innocent, is that you tend to have an alibi that is verifiable.

I need to ask just to make sure.....

So what you're saying is that there is no such thing as wrongful conviction? You're saying that if someone does not have an alibi they must be guilty?

 

[Bill Williams]

If someone walks into a police station of their own accord and wants to blurt out incriminating statements, that's their responsibility. As Amanda was not questioned as a suspect, there is no onus on the police to shut them up.

Fortunately, none of this describes what happened.

It's always amazing that guilters make it sound like Amanda calmly walked into the Questura and said, "Excuse me, I'd like to accuse Mr. Lumumba. Could I talk with someone in charge?"

For heaven's sake, even a senior cop said, "she buckled and told us what we already knew to be true."

 

[Bill Williams]

OK, so she was eighteen. So we should assume she's from a background where no-one's a virgin over the age of 17. So that's OK, then.

Is this your apology for stating, wrongly, the "fact" that the sister was 14? Are you also ready to apologize for posting a photo which you said showed there were no bars on the lower window, when it in fact showed that there were?

 

[bagels]

Make up your mind. A while ago someone was arguing Amanda's sister was not a naive young innocent, but someone streetwise who'd probably been around the block a few times, like her sister and therefore no problem about the cocaine dealer train pick-up. Now you are saying pampered middle class suburb kids are nice girls.

It's important to note that sociopathy is no respecter of class, age or gender, cf the 14 year old American school girl who took pot shots at her classmates and teachers because, "I don't like Mondays".

I don't really care about the train incident so I never said anything about it.

The point is the harsh interrogation techniques you're so fond of may or may not work against a guilty person but they'll certainly increase the chance of false confession against an innocent person, which is exactly what happened, and why the interrogation was poorly managed.

The police didn't show any restrain at all because they were absolutely certain Amanda was guilty. After all, she lied to them about being at her boyfriends when in fact she was texting an African immigrant of all people about a secret rendezvous on the very evening of the murder.

If they had known that Amanda was supposed to work that evening and the text was about her work schedule, they may have taken more precautions in the interrogation and gotten her to corroborate her story in more detail which, if she were actually guilty, may have lead to securing a conviction in the long run instead of having her go free and write million dollar books. But that takes something called competence, discretion, professionalism, etc which the entire department seemed to lack.

 

[Vixen]

A good interrogation (and I consider interrogations to be a lazy cop's tool) should result in information that only the perpetrator should know. There was none of the with Amanda.

Amanda volunteered she took Patrick there for sex and that she heard Mez' bloodcurdling scream as Patrick according to Amanda raped and murdered Mez. Only a witness -or the perp themself - would know there had been such a scream.

It would be grossly irresponsible for police not to act on this information.

It's akin to Amanda saying there's a **** in my suitcase as she goes through security at an airport. Of course things will suddenly get frantic.

 

[Vixen]

Huh!? Is this an awkward attempt at slut-shaming?

No. The thrust of the topic was it responsible behaviour for Amanda to go off for sex with the guy she picked up on a train, leaving her sister alone in the hotel. The thrust of your response is, the sister was not as young as you were led to understand, and thus the behaviour is fine.

 

[Bill Williams]

No. The thrust of the topic was it responsible behaviour for Amanda to go off for sex with the guy she picked up on a train, leaving her sister alone in the hotel. The thrust of your response is, the sister was not as young as you were led to understand, and thus the behaviour is fine.

Please do not misunderstand me. The "thrust of my response" is: what has this got to do with the horrible events that happened 6-7 weeks' later?

 

[Vixen]

I need to ask just to make sure.....

So what you're saying is that there is no such thing as wrongful conviction? You're saying that if someone does not have an alibi they must be guilty?

No, that doesn't logically follow at all. In the US, only 10 alleles are needed for DNA matching (there were 15 of Mez on the blade and a full profile of Raff on the bra clasp). Amanda and Raff would almost certainly now be doing life without parole or even be awaiting the death penalty if they had stood trial in the USA. You cannot appeal the death penalty there, without first accepting your guilt and showing signs of remorse, as part of the 15-step process.