Amanda Knox guilty - all because of a cartwheel

[Chris_Halkides]

False statement about the knife

Mike,

I think I would draw a different conclusion with respect to Sollecito’s statements about the knife than you would. There are a series of experiments on the subject of false confessions in which the basic set-up is to tell a person to do a computer task but not to push the shift key or the computer will crash. The computer is programmed to crash during the task, and then the subject is asked whether he or she pushed the shift lever. A surprisingly high number of subjects sign a piece of paper to that effect, and a substantial fraction of them believe it (try Googling false confession computer crash). BTW, I wish more posters had followed up on Skeptigirl’s comments on false confessions; it’s a fascinating and important topic.

In presumably good faith the police told Sollecito that Kercher’s DNA was found on his knife (that claim is disputed and probably false, for reasons I have given previously). Sollecito comes up with a story (which I presume to be false) to explain the dubious DNA, which he himself may or may not have believed. This incident may or may not mean that he is willing to lie to get out of a jam, but that alone would not make him different from many of the rest of us. If you feel differently, I am willing to agree to disagree.

Chris

 

[Fiona]

RE: Lies.

I misremembered what was said about the lawyer's statement. What I read was this:

2/Enter CHRIS MELLAS.

He is the one with a bee in his bonnett about Amanda being hit about the head. But Amanda's lawyers never claimed this to be the case in the testimony they have given and the questions they asked of the witnesses. It was never part of the court discussion about their treatment on the night. Outside court at the pre-trial, Amanda's lawyer, Luciano Ghirga explicitly said:

"The police didn't hit her. There was pressure yes, but they didn't hit her. We've never said they hit her."

Up swaggers Chris to the media. In his own words "Before the court session, I told Amanda to speak up for herself"

What did she do? I believe with Mellas's encouragement but without the knowledge of her lawyers she adds to the end of her spontaneous statement. "I was hit, I'm sorry, but I was"

Major foul. Nowhere in the preceding court sessions had anyone suggested that Amanda was hit. Certainly not her own lawyers. The subject was simply never mentioned.

Up jumps Mignini "Slander!! I want an inquiry into Amanda's allegations." The court agrees. Amanda's lawyers are powerless to prevent it. She broke the rules governing spontaneous statements and introduced a new element into the trial.

http://perugiamurderfile.org/viewtopic.php?f=1&t=121&p=7583&hilit=pressure+police+never+hit#p7583

While much of what is said on that board is good, conscientious and referenced, some is not. In order to be certain it is accurate I would need to find the source of the girgha quote: I have not yet, though I will keep looking. So can anyone else

But in relations to the conduct of the police questioning I do not think it is deniable that she lied and admitted she liked

Matthew Best: you are not convinced: and that is fair enough.

For me Knox told people that she was questioned for 14 hours (some reports say 9) without food, drink or rest. In court she said she was offered food and drink and she agreed that the questioning stopped at 1.45.

If you do not see that as an admission that she lied then we must leave it there. I cannot see it any other way

 

[Chris_Halkides]

Sollecito's forensic expert

BobTheDonkey,

IIRC a forensic expert hired by Sollecito’s family walked out just before the trial began, leaving behind a bill for 50,000 euros. The arguments about the DNA I have presented (they do not originate with me) are either valid, or they are not. With due respect, I would be hesitant to dismiss them on the basis you suggest.

Chris

 

[Micromegas]

I think I would draw a different conclusion with respect to Sollecito’s statements about the knife than you would.

And that's swell, Chris. I've said before that the amount of speculation on the part of the Knox supporters is several orders of magnitude greater than that on the side of the Italian investigators. All I'm doing is playing the odds.

Look at the title of this thread. There seems to be some belief that there's no physical or circumstantial evidence against Knox and Sollecito, that they were both railroaded only because they were grieving in their own unique way.

The truth is that there is a reasonable amount of evidence that Knox and Sollecito were both there that night. There is evidence that there were attempts to clean the house and get rid of things that may point to the involvement of Knox and Sollecito. That Knox, whether she herself is innocent or not, made absolutely false statements in a conscious attempt to incriminate an innocent man is beyond doubt.

I just think that when we look at the facts altogether, the case against Knox seems a lot more material than her supporters will admit.

-Mike

 

[Fiona]

This has to be why they were called down to the Questura (first as witnesses) so many times before they were officially charged. I just wonder why Sollecito and Knox wouldn't know that they were actually under investigation and immediately secure counsel. Arrogance? Stupidity? Both?

I do not think this is correct.

The pair were questioned initially for fairly obvious reasons: they were at the scene when the police arrived. The other people who were there were also questioned, as one would expect. That was on the day the crime was discovered, November 1st.

Knox says she was asked to return to the police station the following day. She says the police took her back to the house and asked her some questions about the victim's personal life and also about one of the young men who lived downstairs. They then took her to the downstairs flat and asked her if the scene there was as usual, in her opinion. According to her e-mail she was able to confirm the blood on Stefano's bed was not normally there.

They then returned her to the police station where they repeated the questions they had asked in the two houses and recorded her answers. Sollecito then picked her up from the police station and they went for pizza and then to buy underwear.

All of that would be on the 2nd of November

The reason Sollecito was asked to go to the police station on the 5th, so far as I can recall, was because he had intially told the police that he and Knox were at a party on the night he murder was committed. The police had discovered this was not true and they wanted to talk to him about this.

As he was a witness at that stage he had some control over the time he attended and I understand that it was his wish that he go to the police station after the pair had had dinner.

 

[Chris_Halkides]

speculation

Mike,

You wrote, “I've said before that the amount of speculation on the part of the Knox supporters is several orders of magnitude greater than that on the side of the Italian investigators.” I respectfully, but strongly disagree. Based on the sources I have discussed here, there is no credible DNA evidence that links the two defendants to the crime (I have not formed an opinion about other evidence). There are however, the inflammatory words that the Italian prosecutor put into Amanda’s mouth without one scintilla of evidence, “You are always behaving like a little saint. Now we will show you. Now we will make you have sex.” Now THAT is wild speculation.

Chris

 

[JihadJane]

And, yet, she admitted that she wasn't mistreated at a later date. So, which was it?

I don't know. What criteria do you use to judge when she was telling the truth and when she wasn't?

Again, she's on trial for murder and her Defense team fails to present this?

Lack of evidence?

They didn't believe her?

Her conflicting statements?

 

[Micromegas]

Chris,

The factoid-war gets us nowhere. What I've tried to do is look at the case from both sides, and take everything into account. Even if the DNA evidence is shaky, there is plenty of evidence that Knox and Sollecito were there that night. There is evidence of cleanup efforts after Kercher's death. There is no consistency to the stories that Knox and Sollecito have told concerning their whereabouts and the events of the night Kercher was murdered. Knox for some reason tried to incriminate an innocent man in the murder.

It's difficult for me to assess all this information together and conclude that Knox is being framed.

-Mike

 

[Chris_Halkides]

Mike,

With due respect, you are setting up a false alternative. It is possible to believe that the two defendants should not have been convicted without invoking a frame-up. The general problem of investigatory tunnel vision is well known and not controversial, to the best of my knowledge.

Chris

 

[quadraginta]

Indeed.

Although, to be fair, it does tie back into the discussion concerning the sequestering of juries and such.

So much prejudice against the Prosecution based on hearsay and rumors fed via the Media. At what point is it really wise to release evidence to the public? Where should the line be drawn?

IMO, it appears that it would be most beneficial for a fair trial if all evidence was held until the trial and during the proceedings, the jury sequestered. I understand the desire here in the U.S. for a free press - but the press would not be quieted, there would just be a reasonable delay to protect the trial proceedings.

There is enough here to merit a thread all its own.

The Caylee Anthony case I mentioned upthread is an example of one extreme in American jurisprudence (an ongoing one) where the combination of nearly complete publication of all evidence almost the instant that it is made available to the defense through disclosure rules is magnified by an international feeding frenzy about the case that lasts for months, showcasing and distorting each and every detail at the convenience of whatever POV is being presented.

The opposite extreme is cases where the authorities are tight lipped and secretive until the final decision of a jury. It is sad, but true that the media feeding frenzy is no less pronounced in many of these cases. The difference is that in the absence of fact and detail they resort to imagination and innuendo instead.

Potential jury pools are subject to media exposure in either event. I wonder which is the healthiest preparation for finding an accurate verdict.

 

[quadraginta]

Mike,

I think I would draw a different conclusion with respect to Sollecito’s statements about the knife than you would. There are a series of experiments on the subject of false confessions in which the basic set-up is to tell a person to do a computer task but not to push the shift key or the computer will crash. The computer is programmed to crash during the task, and then the subject is asked whether he or she pushed the shift lever. A surprisingly high number of subjects sign a piece of paper to that effect, and a substantial fraction of them believe it (try Googling false confession computer crash). BTW, I wish more posters had followed up on Skeptigirl’s comments on false confessions; it’s a fascinating and important topic.

In presumably good faith the police told Sollecito that Kercher’s DNA was found on his knife (that claim is disputed and probably false, for reasons I have given previously). Sollecito comes up with a story (which I presume to be false) to explain the dubious DNA, which he himself may or may not have believed. This incident may or may not mean that he is willing to lie to get out of a jam, but that alone would not make him different from many of the rest of us. If you feel differently, I am willing to agree to disagree.

Chris

There is a certain amount of misdirection involved in focusing on the "false confession"

Knox provided a number of contradictory testimonies. Not all of them were even during this alleged "brutal interrogation".

When there is a concern that the authorities have elicited false testimony through coercion the usual problem is not trying to determine which testimony was false or which was elicited especially when nearly all of the versions are equally damning when taken alone. When many of the contradictions appear from testimony unrelated to the interrogation this becomes even more problematic.

When apprised dispassionately her stories read almost like a series of new responses to "Well, if what you say is true then how do you explain this" sort of questions. This is not the pattern of a hapless victim of "brutal interrogation". This is the pattern of a liar being caught out in their lies and trying to regroup.

 

[BobTheDonkey]

There is enough here to merit a thread all its own.

The Caylee Anthony case I mentioned upthread is an example of one extreme in American jurisprudence (an ongoing one) where the combination of nearly complete publication of all evidence almost the instant that it is made available to the defense through disclosure rules is magnified by an international feeding frenzy about the case that lasts for months, showcasing and distorting each and every detail at the convenience of whatever POV is being presented.

The opposite extreme is cases where the authorities are tight lipped and secretive until the final decision of a jury. It is sad, but true that the media feeding frenzy is no less pronounced in many of these cases. The difference is that in the absence of fact and detail they resort to imagination and innuendo instead.

Potential jury pools are subject to media exposure in either event. I wonder which is the healthiest preparation for finding an accurate verdict.

This is, unfortunately, the same conclusion I had reached as I was making my earlier post.

I would hope that if it became well known in the general public that evidence is not released until after the trial, whatever wild speculation is postured in the media would find little traction. Alas, perhaps I expect too much of my fellow citizens

 

[BobTheDonkey]

I don't know. What criteria do you use to judge when she was telling the truth and when she wasn't?



Lack of evidence?

They didn't believe her?

Her conflicting statements?

Ok, so, here you imply that she can be trusted...and then claim that she's made conflicting statements.

Perhaps you've answered your own inquiry without realizing it

 

[Matthew Best]

This is not the pattern of a hapless victim of "brutal interrogation". This is the pattern of a liar being caught out in their lies and trying to regroup.

Evidence? Are there studies which show this?

 

[quadraginta]

Evidence? Are there studies which show this?

Sorry. Should have included an "IMO".

Better, now?

 

[BobTheDonkey]

BobTheDonkey,

IIRC a forensic expert hired by Sollecito’s family walked out just before the trial began, leaving behind a bill for 50,000 euros. The arguments about the DNA I have presented (they do not originate with me) are either valid, or they are not. With due respect, I would be hesitant to dismiss them on the basis you suggest.

Chris

Then why, Chris, if the DNA evidence was so insufficient, did the Defense not use that in court? Why did the Defense not argue the veracity of the DNA evidence?

Rather than state "Hey, look, there's not enough valid DNA evidence because the sample was too small and the girls share a bathroom, etc" the Defense, in fact, verified the DNA evidence on the knife with Sollecito's testimony that it got there when Kercher used the knife. In other words Sollecito admitted that Kercher had come into contact with that particular knife, thus, the DNA evidence is valid. Further, we know that Kerver never went to Sollecito's apartment to leave traces of her DNA on the knife.


ETA: In other words, Sollecito had every reason to believe that Kercher's DNA was on the blade. If the DNA evidence was corrupt, it wouldn't matter. Sollecito's testimony puts the knife in play because we know that he admits it had been in contact with her and we know that she never went to his apartment to make that contact.

 

[Matthew Best]

Sorry. Should have included an "IMO".

Better, now?

Yes fine. And presumably you'll be fine with me saying that this is not the pattern of a "liar being caught out in their lies and trying to regroup". This is the pattern of a hapless victim of brutal interrogation.

You know, since I have as much evidence for my assertion as you do for yours.

 

[tyr_13]

Yes fine. And presumably you'll be fine with me saying that this is not the pattern of a "liar being caught out in their lies and trying to regroup". This is the pattern of a hapless victim of brutal interrogation.

You know, since I have as much evidence for my assertion as you do for yours.

I've never met the hapless victim of brutal interrogation, but I have seen plenty of liars caught in a lie and trying to regroup. Her actions are perfectly consistent with a liar caught in a lie. I lack the relevant information to know if it is also consistent with brutal interrogation.

 

[JihadJane]

Ok, so, here you imply that she can be trusted...and then claim that she's made conflicting statements.

Perhaps you've answered your own inquiry without realizing it

Where have I claimed she can be trusted?

What criteria do you use to judge when she was telling the truth and when she wasn't?

ETA: In other words, Sollecito had every reason to believe that Kercher's DNA was on the blade. If the DNA evidence was corrupt, it wouldn't matter. Sollecito's testimony puts the knife in play because we know that he admits it had been in contact with her and we know that she never went to his apartment to make that contact.

Pure speculation.

 

[Fiona]

I've also seen articles that state that it was Kercher, Sollecito and three unidentified people as well. The problem with news stories is that they're often not 100% accurate, if the prosecution doesn't want to tip their hand on that particular aspect.

The article you quote is from 2008, as you say. If this was strong evidence of contamination of the bra clasp then the defence will have made much of it: so far I have not seen where they did. Do you know what happened to that strand of the defence case? Do you know if there was confirmation of the finding?

And, the fact that it was sitting there for six weeks leaves a lot to question.

No it doesn't, really. It was in a sealed crime scene with no source of contamination. The dna on the bra clasp was not miniscule: no-one has denied it was there; that it was Sollecito's; that it was "abundant"; that is was "firmly fixed"; that the body was moved; that the bra was removed some time after Kerchner died; that the clasp was cut off.

It's also been confirmed that Kercher's DNA on the knife was not from blood. From ABC News International on May 22, 2009:

I think it would really help if you read the thread. Stefanoni specifically testified that it was not blood and Aepervius addressed that about a million pages ago

But, the million dollar question here is: Why is there only Guede's DNA on Kercher's body? If Sollecito and Knox were so heavily involved in the crime, their DNA would be everywhere in that bedroom. All over the bed, all over the floor, all over the victim. The only DNA they've found is Guede's. That strikes me as incredibly odd that Sollecito and Knox managed to clean away their own DNA, but not that of Guede. In fact, impossible. We shed DNA and cellular materials heavily throughout normal activity. During a crime like this, there will be sweat, blood, saliva, mucous, skin and hair shed, which will get all over the place. Why is it not there?

The only DNA from Guede was inside Kerchner. There was none from him on her body either except for a trace on her left (I think) sleeve. So why do you think the other two's dna should be all over the victim when his wasn't?

Guede brought the victim's DNA in there. It doesn't have to mean that Knox and Sollecito are responsible for it and I'm not convinced that the footprint is Sollecito's, as he has a hammer toe which wouldn't leave a print, as it isn't able to touch the ground at all.

You are making stuff up. There is absolutely no trace of Guede in the bathroom

The fact that the door was open doesn't strike me as odd. I come home to an open door occasionally, as the latch on the front door is faulty and doesn't latch all the way, unless it's slammed shut.

Well that is fine: unfortunately it struck Knox as odd. The door was indeed faulty and she said that because of this they were careful. She said the only times it was left open were if one of them was nipping out to dump the rubbish or for very brief outings of that sort.

Blood all over the bathroom... these are young women living there. Women have periods that can make a mess.

What Chillzero said

I cut my hand up on Thanksgiving and, rather than clean up the bloody mess, I dealt with the cuts on my hand and, yes, there were blood smears all over the bathroom and kitchen sinks. If I'd needed medical attention, I wouldn't have cleaned up first. If there were huge pools of blood... yeah, that would make me wonder why she took a shower, rather than freak out. But smears and drops? Not so much. It wasn't a blood bath in there.

As I said before: anything can happen. I think that most people who came home alone; found their door open, though that was unusual and only happened when the person who left it was likely to be back within minutes; found that nobody returned within the time it took to change for a shower; and then went to the bathroom and found blood, would not carry on and take that shower. We are all different and perhaps I am unusually cautious: I am prepared to accept that. What do others think?

Pot does enough to whack people out. I'm not implying that they were high when they were interviewed, but they admitted to being stoned that night and the possibly don't remember exactly what they were doing or where they were. Having that kind of a blackout, on the night that someone was murdered... yeah, that'd freak me out.

I think you will make up any story at all, and here you are reaching. As you are in the rest of your post.

We went through this much earlier in the thread. It is not enough to keep making up stories to explain away each item as if it stood alone: you have to show some evidence in support of your speculations. Your experience of military training is wholly irrelevant. Do you have any reason to think the questioning was coercive? The reality of it doesn't seem coercive to Knox (or perhaps to her stepfather), I presume: otherwise she would not have embroidered it.