Amanda Knox guilty - all because of a cartwheel

[HumanityBlues]

I don't know who paid for their trips. Fulcanelli probably does. I would have to dig for a cite but it seems as though almost all of the family's trips were paid for by someone else.

It "shouldn't" matter, of course. But this is one of those cases where it's almost insanely difficult to separate the wheat from the chaff.

We do know that David Marriott, PR consultant, is still managing the Knox/Mellas team as the appeals process continues:



(Source: http://www.king5.com/news/local/Italy-judges-give-reasons-for-Knox-guilty-verdict-86355402.html )

That's not their legal advisors but a PR consultant. Maybe we're in different cultures or something but when I stand in court I want to be represented by my lawyers and not a TV personality. This case is topsy-turvy that way. The lawyers are relatively obscure while the Anne Bremners are cartoonishly prominent.

I guess it's just a game for them.

I'm pretty sure a lot Amanda's friends paid their own way, but I've been reading through so much stuff it would take me forever to find. I don't really care either way. I don't think the testimony of her friends hurt her at all, and there is an argument their testimony actually helped.

Regardless, I don't find the PR aspect of this case that interesting and will leave that for others to discuss.

 

[stilicho]

I think you're misreading the PR firm's role in the appeal.

In the actual real-life soon-to-be-doomed appeal? Well, you're right. David Marriott will have no effect on their sentences. If anything, they're actually doing irreversible damage to their case.

Ghirga suggested as much as long ago as January of 2009.

 

[stilicho]

Do the Italian police routinely tap the phones of witnesses?

Have you any evidence they didn't tap Sophie Purton's phone? Can you explain why they refused her exit from Italy? She was just a witness after all.

 

[stilicho]

I'm pretty sure a lot Amanda's friends paid their own way...

I'm pretty sure they didn't pay their own way. I don't have time to look for it, either.

 

[HumanityBlues]

In the actual real-life soon-to-be-doomed appeal? Well, you're right. David Marriott will have no effect on their sentences. If anything, they're actually doing irreversible damage to their case.

Ghirga suggested as much as long ago as January of 2009.

Hey, I actually erased that sentence cause I misread what you said. The fault is mine.

 

[HumanityBlues]

I'm pretty sure they didn't pay their own way. I don't have time to look for it, either.

Ok well, it seems neither of us cares that much, so I'm content either way.

 

[HumanityBlues]

Authorities likewise refused Sophie Purton permission to leave Italy in the early days, OI.



(Source: http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/7080400.stm )

Perugia authorities interviewed Meredith's English friends, the boys downstairs, her other uninvolved roommates, and others, while the medical examiner produced his results. They scoured the neighbourhood for witnesses. RS and AK weren't jailed until 06 NOV and only after preliminary investigations were complete--not a "sweep", whatever that is.

What source are you using to suggest that AK and RS were considered to be suspects and not witnesses before 06 NOV?

There is probably some legal factoring on what constitutes a suspect versus a witness under Italian criminal procedure. But you can't deny under a lay person's understanding of what a suspect is (i.e., someone who they suspect was part of the murder) that they suspected Raffaele and Amanda from the beginning. We know that from the court testimony.

 

[stilicho]

There is probably some legal factoring on what constitutes a suspect versus a witness under Italian criminal procedure. But you can't deny under a lay person's understanding of what a suspect is (i.e., someone who they suspect was part of the murder) that they suspected Raffaele and Amanda from the beginning. We know that from the court testimony.

I cannot disagree. But why do all of the pair's advocates ignore the activities of the authorities in the four days before AK decided to accuse her boss of murdering her roommate? They didn't overlook everyone to zero in on the so-called suspects. They collected evidence and statements, performed an autopsy, sealed off the crime scene, refused exits to interested parties, and virtually everything you'd expect police to do here, there, or in any jurisdiction except for Earth 1 1/2.

If you don't think they tapped Sophie's and Robyn's phones then that's your choice. If you don't think they followed the guys from downstairs then that's your choice too. What's the basis of this naivety? Why did they question all of them then? We know from all parties that all of them were, at least at one point, crammed into the Questura together. Was this all a part of some elaborate ruse?

 

[BobTheDonkey]

There is probably some legal factoring on what constitutes a suspect versus a witness under Italian criminal procedure. But you can't deny under a lay person's understanding of what a suspect is (i.e., someone who they suspect was part of the murder) that they suspected Raffaele and Amanda from the beginning. We know that from the court testimony.

Well, naturally.

Who was at the house with Meredith's dead body when the Police arrived? Raf even called it in - before or after the Postal Police arrived doesn't matter in this particular bit.

 

[HumanityBlues]

I cannot disagree. But why do all of the pair's advocates ignore the activities of the authorities in the four days before AK decided to accuse her boss of murdering her roommate? They didn't overlook everyone to zero in on the so-called suspects. They collected evidence and statements, performed an autopsy, sealed off the crime scene, refused exits to interested parties, and virtually everything you'd expect police to do here, there, or in any jurisdiction except for Earth 1 1/2.

If you don't think they tapped Sophie's and Robyn's phones then that's your choice. If you don't think they followed the guys from downstairs then that's your choice too. What's the basis of this naivety? Why did they question all of them then? We know from all parties that all of them were, at least at one point, crammed into the Questura together. Was this all a part of some elaborate ruse?

It's an interesting question, but to wiretap a person's phone who is not a suspect in a crime is a foreign concept to me. Certainly in Perugia you must seek permission to tap someone's phone, unless you believe Italian law does not afford reasonable privacy rights. Do you believe the police had a legal justification to tap other people's phones who they didn't suspect had anything to do with the crime?

 

[stilicho]

...with Meredith's dead body...

...locked inside her room...

Seriously, though, in spite of everything indicating RS and AK, why do people continue to ignore that at least a dozen individuals were maintained as witnesses or "witnesses" during the five days between her murder and AK's voluntary declaration that her boss killed Meredith?

Sophie Purton wasn't allowed to leave Italy but she didn't tell police that her boss murdered her friend.

 

[BobTheDonkey]

...locked inside her room...

Seriously, though, in spite of everything indicating RS and AK, why do people continue to ignore that at least a dozen individuals were maintained as witnesses or "witnesses" during the five days between her murder and AK's voluntary declaration that her boss killed Meredith?

Sophie Purton wasn't allowed to leave Italy but she didn't tell police that her boss murdered her friend.

I'm relatively certain that the status of the room being locked or does little to alleviate the suspicion cast toward the people at the house at the time the Police arrived/the call was made. I'd venture to say that's pretty standard whether in the US, EU, or any other developed region.

 

[stilicho]

It's an interesting question, but to wiretap a person's phone who is not a suspect in a crime is a foreign concept to me. Certainly in Perugia you must seek permission to tap someone's phone, unless you believe Italian law does not afford reasonable privacy rights. Do you believe the police had a legal justification to tap other people's phones who they didn't suspect had anything to do with the crime?

HB, they dragged all of Meredith's friends and acquaintances into the Questura. There has been nothing to suggest their phone taps were illegal. There is nothing to suggest they didn't put all her friends and acquaintances under surveillance.

I'd be with you 110% if they simply focused their direction on AK and RS but they didn't. They spent hours with Sophie, Robyn, the guys downstairs, and scoured the neighbourhood for other witnesses. They checked out everyone's alibis. They did not jump to conclusions because AK and RS looked suspicious.

I consider the wiretaps a red herring. Surveillance operations are routinely conducted even in your own cherished jurisdiction without specific court orders. Traffic cops can follow your vehicle through a stop light without applying for permission. That's surveillance. It's often recorded without your explicit permission and without a court order. Video toll roads work the same way. What's so magical about a wiretap?

 

[shuttlt]

Open Inquiry,

One of the problems I don't think you are addressing is the source of this concern about the verdict. Look at the people who say that the verdict doesn't match the evidence and follow the trail to where they are getting their view of the evidence. It flows through people like Dr Waterbury, or statements from Curt Mellas back to FOA. It could be that the reason that the verdict seems so inexplicable given the evidence is that there is something wrong with the evidence they have been given.

There are of course equal problems with taking the prosecutions word for it.

 

[stilicho]

I'm relatively certain that the status of the room being locked or does little to alleviate the suspicion cast toward the people at the house at the time the Police arrived/the call was made. I'd venture to say that's pretty standard whether in the US, EU, or any other developed region.

But the police didn't jump to this conclusion. Otherwise why would they have interviewed so many people? It was only RS's and AK's alibis that fell through. The other ones didn't.

I thought their locking of Meredith's door was a stupid thing that could only point to the pair but the police acted in a professional manner--unlike me--and retained all potential witnesses for surveillance and questioning. I guess that's why they're the professionals and we're just anonymous internet wags.

 

[BobTheDonkey]

But the police didn't jump to this conclusion. Otherwise why would they have interviewed so many people? It was only RS's and AK's alibis that fell through. The other ones didn't.

I thought their locking of Meredith's door was a stupid thing that could only point to the pair but the police acted in a professional manner--unlike me--and retained all potential witnesses for surveillance and questioning. I guess that's why they're the professionals and we're just anonymous internet wags.

Woah, I think you misunderstand what I'm saying.

When an investigation is ongoing, the investigators look at all the evidence before deciding on suspects. That Amanda and Raf were at the house/made the call factors into that. It's one reason they were considered more likely to be involved than the others. Not to say the others weren't possible suspects. Just that Amanda and Raf had one extra strike against them that the rest of the housemates didn't have.

 

[HumanityBlues]

HB, they dragged all of Meredith's friends and acquaintances into the Questura. There has been nothing to suggest their phone taps were illegal. There is nothing to suggest they didn't put all her friends and acquaintances under surveillance.

I'd be with you 110% if they simply focused their direction on AK and RS but they didn't. They spent hours with Sophie, Robyn, the guys downstairs, and scoured the neighbourhood for other witnesses. They checked out everyone's alibis. They did not jump to conclusions because AK and RS looked suspicious.

I consider the wiretaps a red herring. Surveillance operations are routinely conducted even in your own cherished jurisdiction without specific court orders. Traffic cops can follow your vehicle through a stop light without applying for permission. That's surveillance. It's often recorded without your explicit permission and without a court order. Video toll roads work the same way. What's so magical about a wiretap?

Ok, what I've said is being misconstrued. I never implied any illegal wiretapping here, just to be clear. My point is that in order to wiretap (and there is a difference from this as opposed to other forms of surveillance), you have to take affirmative steps in order to get permission to do so. You must have a legally justifiable reason and generally a magistrate or some form of authority must approve it. Aside from totalitarian states like North Korea, public officers do not get to just listen in on people's phone calls. There will be a paper trail.

The disagreement here is whether others had their phones listened in on. I'm merely stating because they weren't suspected, getting a legal wiretap for the nonsuspects would be more difficult, and thus i would not be surprised if they did not endure the same kind of surveillance as Amanda and Raffaele.

You ask what is so different about a wiretap, and all I can say is that, universally, tapping someone's phone is considered inherently more invasive than other forms of surveillance, thus requiring more justification in order for officers to be granted the right to do so.

 

[stilicho]

Ok, what I've said is being misconstrued. I never implied any illegal wiretapping here, just to be clear. My point is that in order to wiretap (and there is a difference from this as opposed to other forms of surveillance), you have to take affirmative steps in order to get permission to do so. You must have a legally justifiable reason and generally a magistrate or some form of authority must approve it. Aside from totalitarian states like North Korea, public officers do not get to just listen in on people's phone calls. There will be a paper trail.

The disagreement here is whether others had their phones listened in on. I'm merely stating because they weren't suspected, getting a legal wiretap for the nonsuspects would be more difficult, and thus i would not be surprised if they did not endure the same kind of surveillance as Amanda and Raffaele.

You ask what is so different about a wiretap, and all I can say is that, universally, tapping someone's phone is considered inherently more invasive than other forms of surveillance, thus requiring more justification in order for officers to be granted the right to do so.

Oh, I agree. Nobody should be put under surveillance without proper procedures being followed. The problem is that we are. We all are. Wiretaps are sort of so-Seventies. There are other ways to follow people. The cell towers were brought into evidence and none of those people were properly consulted before that happened.

None of us know how much we are under surveillance even when making a routine cash withdrawal but we are.

Wiretapping is no more intrusive than that little mirror you see on your ATM or the camera in the convenience store watching you buy Hustler. (Not that I think you buy Hustler, of course, but if you did...)

 

[HumanityBlues]

Wiretapping is no more intrusive than that little mirror you see on your ATM or the camera in the convenience store watching you buy

Agree with everything you say up until the above point, but perhaps the discussion is becoming a little to theoretical and removed from the topic of this thread.

But suffice it to say, the difference is when you walk into a convenience store, or use an ATM, you consent to the rules of a private entity by stepping inside their building and using their stuff. Certainly we can all agree the bank is not going to tap your phone or set up cameras in your house (which would be spying obviously). It's much different when a state actor (the government) does it.

 

[katy_did]

If he withdrew cash they would know where and when very quickly, surely the bank would alert them? He would have to find a cash machine, or shop away from CCTV, but where he would not be remembered. If he didn't go to some automated payment system there would be the risk of somebody noticing the female name on the card. He might have taken the risk I suppose but it would be high risk. Where ever he used it the police would be onto rapidly and would be checking any CCTV to find him.

In fact, there was discussion during the trial about whether or not someone had used Meredith's bank card the day after the murder. What had happened - as I think they brought an expert in to testify - is that the transaction had taken place the day before, but had only gone through a day later. But they didn't know that for certain until they verified it. So had Guede used her bank card the next day, for example, it's unlikely the police would have been onto it rapidly enough for it to have made any difference in terms of catching him.

Something else that just occurred to me is that since the locking of the bedroom door and so forth seems to have been an attempt to delay the discovery of the body - and since it was a public holiday, so many people would be away for the whole weekend - Guede should have had several days to try and use her cards. Perhaps the fact he didn't attempt to is because her body was discovered sooner than he anticipated.

Depends how careful and or lucky he was. Within a day or two at most the bank would be onto the cards and the police would be tracking down any use that was made of them.

As I said above, it wasn't until the trial that they knew her cards hadn't been used after the murder. I wonder how soon it was they even discovered her cards were missing? Can't have been that quickly, if they weren't even able to verify whether or not they were used until the trial.

Is stealing somebodies phone really a known way of accessing somebodies bank account? He bank must be more advance than mine, or she must have had a fancy phone

I wouldn't have considered the phones having been taken in order to access her account, if a call hadn't been made to her bank. People do also sometimes store information like account numbers and branch details on their phones, even pin numbers if they're especially stupid. However, I think the more likely explanation for the phones having been taken is so that they wouldn't be heard ringing in her room, if one of her flatmates tried to call them. The locked door could then simply mean she was out, while if her phones were heard ringing it would be more cause for concern.