Amanda Knox guilty - all because of a cartwheel

[BobTheDonkey]

Ok, so none of Rudy's stories were the truth.

Glad we've established that.


Now, how does this apply to Amanda? The claim, I believe, was that Rudy named Amanda. The counter-claim was that this accusation by Rudy was false and just another one of his changing stories.


So, we've established that Rudy is not a reliable witness - except that all his stories involve him being on the toilet when the murder happened. I'm inclined to believe this, mostly because the stool left in the toilet indicates that he was startled enough by something to forget to flush.

However, we have here a witness as unreliable as Amanda. Yet, where Amanda is allowed to have false memories implanted by Police in 5 days, Rudy is just a liar (or needed 4 months). Interesting, that.

And it's not like the false memory thing would ever be allowed to be Rudy's defense - oh no. The DNA evidence against him is the most valid ever. No chance of contamination there. Yet, the exact same technicians and exact same lab are supposed to have been incompetent when collecting anything that points to Amanda's involvement (and I leave Raffaele out because no one cares about him - his innocence is only argued as it's required for Amanda's).

 

[Fiona]

Do you have any idea how attorneys prepare their clients for testimony? Amanda and Raffaelle were already in jail -- the perfect sitting ducks. All Rudy's attorneys had to do was either get Rudy to lie, or persuade him -- the same way the police persuaded Amanda -- that maybe that was Raffaele he saw at the scene, and not just some stranger. If you committed murder and somebody gave you such a well-prepared "out," would you not take it?

That is a truly shocking allegation to throw in casually. I do not think you know any more about how "attorneys prepare their clients for testimony" than you do about how witness statements are taken in america.

But once again I see that we have to accept that everybody and his wee brother have it in fro RS and AK, for no reason at all.

 

[Mary_H]

Now, how does this apply to Amanda? The claim, I believe, was that Rudy named Amanda. The counter-claim was that this accusation by Rudy was false and just another one of his changing stories.

So, we've established that Rudy is not a reliable witness - except that all his stories involve him being on the toilet when the murder happened. I'm inclined to believe this, mostly because the stool left in the toilet indicates that he was startled enough by something to forget to flush.

What makes you think people all over the world flush the toilet as a general rule? The boys downstairs reported that once Rudy was so high he fell asleep on their toilet. If he was high the night he committed the crime, he might not have given the social convention about flushing toilets a second thought. If you ever used a public restroom, you will agree that some people don't even do it when they're completely sober.

However, we have here a witness as unreliable as Amanda. Yet, where Amanda is allowed to have false memories implanted by Police in 5 days, Rudy is just a liar (or needed 4 months). Interesting, that.

Amanda is not unreliable. There is no evidence that Amanda lied before she was interrogated. She retracted part of her false statement within a few hours of having made it, then retracted the rest soon after. She never swayed from her original alibi at any time except for during that very short period of about a day or so.

Rudy had four moths for his lawyers and his own guilty conscience to form an alternative explanation to what had actually happened. I can just hear his thoughts -- "Hey, maybe I didn't commit that murder after all!"

And it's not like the false memory thing would ever be allowed to be Rudy's defense - oh no. The DNA evidence against him is the most valid ever. No chance of contamination there. Yet, the exact same technicians and exact same lab are supposed to have been incompetent when collecting anything that points to Amanda's involvement (and I leave Raffaele out because no one cares about him - his innocence is only argued as it's required for Amanda's).

The difference is investigators were testing Rudy's DNA before he was arrested; in fact, they used evidence from the crime scene to name him as a suspect. By the time Rudy was apprehended, Amanda, Raffaele and Patrick had been locked up for almost two weeks, held on the basis of two coerced confessions and nothing else. Judge Matteini had written a lengthy report describing how the murder had taken place -- Patrick Lumumba was involved and Meredith was cut with Raffaele's flick knife.

The "DNA samples" that were produced after the fact might as well have been tested in a different lab, because Rudy's evidence was processed without prejudice, whereas the exact opposite was true for Amanda and Raffaele's evidence.

 

[Mary_H]

That is a truly shocking allegation to throw in casually. I do not think you know any more about how "attorneys prepare their clients for testimony" than you do about how witness statements are taken in america.

But once again I see that we have to accept that everybody and his wee brother have it in fro RS and AK, for no reason at all.

Hardly anybody and his wee brother has it in for Amanda. It's pretty much just you guys.

Yes, truly shocking. Those poor lawyers -- don't I have any respect? Don't I realize what a serious allegation I have made? Shame on me, once again.

Please -- teach me how to criticize and accuse the powerless instead of the powerful. I want to learn how to be a complete sap.

 

[BobTheDonkey]

What makes you think people all over the world flush the toilet as a general rule? The boys downstairs reported that once Rudy was so high he fell asleep on their toilet. If he was high the night he committed the crime, he might not have given the social convention about flushing toilets a second thought. If you ever used a public restroom, you will agree that some people don't even when they're completely sober.

Falling asleep on the toilet =/= forgetting to flush. Do you have any actual evidence that Rudy habitually forgot to flush?

Regardless, as I stated - that is my belief. However, we'll never know the truth unless all any one of the three stop lying and begins to tell what really happened that night. I'd like to add, as I have before, that my scenario in no way exculpates Rudy of guilt in this. He is as guilty as Amanda and Raffaele.

Amanda is not unreliable. There is no evidence that Amanda lied before she was interrogated. She retracted part of her false statement within a few hours of having made it, then retracted the rest soon after. She never swayed from her original alibi at any time except for during that very short period of about a day or so.

You are either being intentionally obtuse or lying. I have already posted plenty of evidence, from Raffaele's own prison diary, that Amanda was lying from the start - and that he was lying for her at her bequest. On top of that, apparently 1:45 in an interrogation room is enough to cause her to blurt out the first name that is presented to her and develop elaborate false memories that persist for weeks. If false memories are so easily implanted in her mind, then she is an incredibly unreliable witness.

Rudy had four moths for his lawyers and his own guilty conscience to form an alternative explanation to what had actually happened. I can just hear his thoughts -- "Hey, maybe I didn't commit that murder after all!"

So he was in contact with his lawyers from the start? And you're going to now claim that his false memories were implanted by himself?

The difference is investigators were testing Rudy's DNA before he was arrested; in fact, they used evidence from the crime scene to name him as a suspect. By the time Rudy was apprehended, Amanda, Raffaele and Patrick had been locked up for almost two weeks, held on the basis of two coerced confessions and nothing else. Judge Matteini had written a lengthy report describing how the murder had taken place -- Patrick Lumumba was involved and Meredith was cut with Raffaele's flick knife.

The "DNA samples" that were produced after the fact might as well have been tested in a different lab, because Rudy's evidence was processed without prejudice, whereas the exact opposite was true for Amanda and Raffaele's evidence.

When were the samples collected? The knife was collected early enough for Sollecito to have written about it early in his prison diary.

This argument of yours just doesn't fly. It requires a conspiracy of massive proportions, and there's just no reason to believe that's the most likely explanation for the evidence.

 

[Mary_H]

Falling asleep on the toilet =/= forgetting to flush. Do you have any actual evidence that Rudy habitually forgot to flush?

Do you have any evidence that Rudy EVER flushed?

You are either being intentionally obtuse or lying. I have already posted plenty of evidence, from Raffaele's own prison diary, that Amanda was lying from the start - and that he was lying for her at her bequest.

There is no evidence in Raffaele's diary that Amanda asked him to lie.

On top of that, apparently 1:45 in an interrogation room is enough to cause her to blurt out the first name that is presented to her and develop elaborate false memories that persist for weeks. If false memories are so easily implanted in her mind, then she is an incredibly unreliable witness.

No, she is an incredibly young, impressionable and obedient witness who believed the police when they suggested Patrick Lumumba to her. Do you believe that someone who is in their fifteenth year of formal schooling is likely to be disrespectful of authority, particularly police?

What is this about false memories persisting for weeks? Patrick was imprisoned for two weeks. Long before he was released, Amanda had consulted with her lawyers and there is little doubt she had told them she was not at the scene of the crime. It was their responsibility, not hers, to convey that information to the police, and I presume they did -- why wouldn't they if they wanted to get their client out of jail?

Furthermore, Amanda told the police herself on the 7th that she could not be sure of her statement. That put her allegations against Patrick on very shaky ground immediately.

So he was in contact with his lawyers from the start? And you're going to now claim that his false memories were implanted by himself?

As RWVBWL pointed out, there was plenty of fodder in the newspapers. Plus, Rudy's friend told him what was going on. Throw in the lawyers, a healthy dose of denial and wishful thinking, and his ultimate story of what happened was good enough to get him a sentence of only sixteen years. If it were actually true, he would have come out with it at the beginning.

When were the samples collected? The knife was collected early enough for Sollecito to have written about it early in his prison diary.

The fact that they were collected after Raffaele's flick knife proved to have no DNA on it should be evidence enough that the police were looking for a replacement murder weapon. As if any killer ever held onto a murder weapon and kept it in the kitchen drawer.

This argument of yours just doesn't fly. It requires a conspiracy of massive proportions, and there's just no reason to believe that's the most likely explanation for the evidence.

It's not a matter of a conscious conspiracy. It's a matter of an authoritarian system in which it is not acceptable to question higher-ups.

 

[Fiona]

I think you mean audio/visual recording. This has been typically one of the mystifying things about this thread. All statements to police are recorded. They carry little notebooks. They call into the station.

Sorry to come back to this but of course you are correct, Stilicho. Police officers write things down, at the very least. And they get their notes typed up, sometimes too. We know that this is what the Italian police do, because Knox tells us so in her e-mail.

I was talking about audio/visual because I was under the impression that some people were claiming this is routinely done in America. HumanityBlues tells us this is not so. It is certainly not so in Scotland or in England. It is not so in Italy either, so far as I can determine.

In this country police officers can refer to their notes in court when they are being questioned. So can social workers and other such witnesses (but only if those notes are "contemporaneous"). Those notes are not handed over, and they do not form any part of the trial record. Only testimony (which might be informed by those notes) is part of the trial. This is because witnesses are under oath when they are in court:but they are not under oath when they are interviewed in police stations nor when they are taking notes for a case record or an aide memoire.

 

[HumanityBlues]

Sorry to come back to this but of course you are correct, Stilicho. Police officers write things down, at the very least. And they get their notes typed up, sometimes too. We know that this is what the Italian police do, because Knox tells us so in her e-mail.

I was talking about audio/visual because I was under the impression that some people were claiming this is routinely done in America. HumanityBlues tells us this is not so. It is certainly not so in Scotland or in England. It is not so in Italy either, so far as I can determine.

In this country police officers can refer to their notes in court when they are being questioned. So can social workers and other such witnesses (but only if those notes are "contemporaneous"). Those notes are not handed over, and they do not form any part of the trial record. Only testimony (which might be informed by those notes) is part of the trial. This is because witnesses are under oath when they are in court:but they are not under oath when they are interviewed in police stations nor when they are taking notes for a case record or an aide memoire.

Just to be clear, in many jurisdictions it actually is routinely done. I just said it's not required by law in many states. I can dig up the statistics if you want. Let me know.

 

[stilicho]

Just to be clear, in many jurisdictions it actually is routinely done. I just said it's not required by law in many states. I can dig up the statistics if you want. Let me know.

I think the topic of CCTV recordings of police interviews is one in which we're all in agreement. They should be required by law if they aren't already. Just think of all the awesome footage for America's Funniest Police Interrogations.

Where we seem to vary is whether it's an issue in this case. All those arrested were treated fairly. Amanda, in particular, had plenty of time to have her lawyers identify the mysterious chestnut-haired woman alleged to have flicked her on the head but she didn't name anyone when provided the opportunity.

 

[Fiona]

It is interesting HumanityBlues: but I do not think it is worth doing much work on. The point, as I understand it anyway, was that some of the people here appeared to think there was something strange or reprehensible or sinister in the fact that witness interviews were not electronically recorded in this case. I think that is based on a misunderstanding of normal procedure (and we also saw this in the claims that there was something wrong with the fact that the lay judges were not sequestered: that, too, was shown to be based on a misunderstanding of what actually happens in america, where sequestration can be part of the system, but is not used as often as people seem to think).

We have discussed this extensively and I had thought the matter laid to rest ( I know, I was naive 150 pages ago ) The interest lay in the differences between different systems: how that impacts on outcomes; and also in the things we think we know about how the system we each live under actually works, in theory and in practice. That part I found interesting and instructive.

Your own point, about whether it should be done, is, as you say, a matter for philosophical jurisprudence and is completely separate from this case. By now repetition of this point, either directly or by inference, can only be due to the ignorance of newcomers who have not read the thread: or it is argument by innuendo which seeks to trade on that ignorance. Perhaps there are other possibilities: but I am not seeing anything else in the last wee while.

A knee jerk anti authority response is as childish and unhelpful as uncritical acceptance of authority. A knee jerk anti-authority response based on uncritical acceptance of statements based on a different authority, with no attempt to find out the facts, is just plain daft.

 

[HumanityBlues]

It is interesting HumanityBlues: but I do not think it is worth doing much work on. The point, as I understand it anyway, was that some of the people here appeared to think there was something strange or reprehensible or sinister in the fact that witness interviews were not electronically recorded in this case. I think that is based on a misunderstanding of normal procedure (and we also saw this in the claims that there was something wrong with the fact that the lay judges were not sequestered: that, too, was shown to be based on a misunderstanding of what actually happens in america, where sequestration can be part of the system, but is not used as often as people seem to think).

We have discussed this extensively and I had thought the matter laid to rest ( I know, I was naive 150 pages ago ) The interest lay in the differences between different systems: how that impacts on outcomes; and also in the things we think we know about how the system we each live under actually works, in theory and in practice. That part I found interesting and instructive.

Your own point, about whether it should be done, is, as you say, a matter for philosophical jurisprudence and is completely separate from this case. By now repetition of this point, either directly or by inference, can only be due to the ignorance of newcomers who have not read the thread: or it is argument by innuendo which seeks to trade on that ignorance. Perhaps there are other possibilities: but I am not seeing anything else in the last wee while.

A knee jerk anti authority response is as childish and unhelpful as uncritical acceptance of authority. A knee jerk anti-authority response based on uncritical acceptance of statements based on a different authority, with no attempt to find out the facts, is just plain daft.

Apologies if this was brought up, but did we all miss this or has this been discussed? This was with an interview with an Italian Lawyer about legal questions:

The law is very clear: A suspect must not be interrogated without a lawyer.

Once a suspect, an interrogation must be interrupted, the suspect read his or her rights to remain silent and be provided a lawyer. Italian law does not allow waiver of one's right to counsel. Even if a suspect doesn't want a lawyer, the authorities are required to appoint one.

If a suspect's freedom of movement is hindered, the interrogation must be videotaped.

In Knox's case, a video or audio recording of the entire police interrogation -- authorities have denied that any such recordings exist -- could identify when police began treating Knox as a suspect and what procedures were followed.

In fact, Italy's Supreme Court has already said that some of her early statements may not be used against her because they were made without an attorney present.

---------------------------------------
This sounds like the equivalent to saying in the American sense, any custodial interrogation must be videotaped.

 

[Fulcanelli]

Here is a copy of Raffaele's letters from prison, in Italian. If you paste it into the search bar on Google you can ask it to translate the page and get the gist of it. Then you can find out what he really said about the interrogation, about the lies the police told and that he was sure Amanda had spent the whole night with him.

http://quotidianonet.ilsole24ore.com...meredith.shtml

He didn't need a lawyer by that point, the police were done with him.

Do you have any idea how attorneys prepare their clients for testimony? Amanda and Raffaelle were already in jail -- the perfect sitting ducks. All Rudy's attorneys had to do was either get Rudy to lie, or persuade him -- the same way the police persuaded Amanda -- that maybe that was Raffaele he saw at the scene, and not just some stranger. If you committed murder and somebody gave you such a well-prepared "out," would you not take it?

How can you trust anything Guede says four months after the crime? Why was THIS his final, acceptable story, and not all the stories he had told up to that time?

Rubbish. If Rudy's lawyers wanted to 'persuade' him it wouldn't have taken them months to do it.

And it's worth noting, if Amanda and Raffaele were truly innocent, Rudy had EVERY reason from the get-go to say it was them he saw there. The only reason he'd have had to not say they were there is if they actually were, for then they could say things to damage him in return. Omerta.

 

[shuttlt]

HumanityBlues,

That fills out a few details, but the key question still seems to be - what is it that causes a witness to be legally regarded as having become a suspect?

 

[stilicho]

Once a suspect, an interrogation must be interrupted, the suspect read his or her rights to remain silent and be provided a lawyer. Italian law does not allow waiver of one's right to counsel. Even if a suspect doesn't want a lawyer, the authorities are required to appoint one.

If that particular article wasn't addressed then the topic itself was. AK and RS each created themselves as suspects during the evening of 05/06 NOV 2007. We don't know as much about Sollecito's interview as we do about Amanda's but it's apparent that she could have left at any point because she had voluntarily chosen to attend the session. The police didn't ask her in.

The article is also clear that she only became a suspect after blurting out Patrick's name and placing herself in the cottage. That was almost certainly the moment at which the police realised they'd blundered and that her statement would obviously be ruled inadmissible.

This goes back to my previous question about just how much video they ought to have had of Amanda. She loves to talk. It wouldn't have been surprising to hear her blurt out something incriminating while doing her homework by the elevator. And she loves to write. She spent four hours doing nothing and then, after knowing she had a lawyer and was a suspect in a murder investigation, wrote down everything she'd just secured as inadmissible.

Maybe there ought to be a special law by which people who can't shut up are permanently recorded just so they stop incriminating themselves.

 

[stilicho]

HumanityBlues,

That fills out a few details, but the key question still seems to be - what is it that causes a witness to be legally regarded as having become a suspect?

When she told them that she was there.

 

[HumanityBlues]

If that particular article wasn't addressed then the topic itself was. AK and RS each created themselves as suspects during the evening of 05/06 NOV 2007. We don't know as much about Sollecito's interview as we do about Amanda's but it's apparent that she could have left at any point because she had voluntarily chosen to attend the session. The police didn't ask her in.

The article is also clear that she only became a suspect after blurting out Patrick's name and placing herself in the cottage. That was almost certainly the moment at which the police realised they'd blundered and that her statement would obviously be ruled inadmissible.

This goes back to my previous question about just how much video they ought to have had of Amanda. She loves to talk. It wouldn't have been surprising to hear her blurt out something incriminating while doing her homework by the elevator. And she loves to write. She spent four hours doing nothing and then, after knowing she had a lawyer and was a suspect in a murder investigation, wrote down everything she'd just secured as inadmissible.

Maybe there ought to be a special law by which people who can't shut up are permanently recorded just so they stop incriminating themselves.

Even assuming everything you've just said is correct, shouldn't the rest of her questioning been videotaped then under Italian law? Isn't that what is being said?

 

[Fulcanelli]

Amanda is not unreliable. There is no evidence that Amanda lied before she was interrogated. She retracted part of her false statement within a few hours of having made it, then retracted the rest soon after. She never swayed from her original alibi at any time except for during that very short period of about a day or so.

Ehh....no she didn't Mary.

And what is that alibi exactly Mary? Would that be the alibi where the time she had dinner changed at least 3 times?

Rudy had four moths for his lawyers and his own guilty conscience to form an alternative explanation to what had actually happened. I can just hear his thoughts -- "Hey, maybe I didn't commit that murder after all!"

It took Rudy 4 months to add in a couple of little details? That's all that changed.

Hardly anybody and his wee brother has it in for Amanda. It's pretty much just you guys.

And all the nasty Italians of course....

No, she is an incredibly young, impressionable and obedient witness who believed the police when they suggested Patrick Lumumba to her. Do you believe that someone who is in their fifteenth year of formal schooling is likely to be disrespectful of authority, particularly police?

We've been over this and nobody is buying your 'police suggested Patrick Lumumba' rubbish.

The fact that they were collected after Raffaele's flick knife proved to have no DNA on it should be evidence enough that the police were looking for a replacement murder weapon. As if any killer ever held onto a murder weapon and kept it in the kitchen drawer.

The police never said Raffaele's pocket knife wasn't involved. In fact, Massei says that it was. But it is a fact, you may not like it, that Meredith was stabbed with at least two different knives. And really, are you an expert on the history of murder and know through some specific research that no murderer has ever kept a murder weapon in some rather ordinary place in their home?

 

[BobTheDonkey]

Even assuming everything you've just said is correct, shouldn't the rest of her questioning been videotaped then under Italian law? Isn't that what is being said?

My understanding of that night is as such:

Immediately prior to 1:45, Amanda placed herself in the cottage while Meredith was being murdered.
At 1:45, The interview was stopped and Amanda was informed that she was now a suspect.

Sometime before 5:45, Amanda requested a pen and paper. She then wrote her letter.



Since there was no actual interrogation involving the letter (2nd statement of the night), it wasn't considered to be covered under the video-tape law.

 

[HumanityBlues]

My understanding of that night is as such:

Immediately prior to 1:45, Amanda placed herself in the cottage while Meredith was being murdered.
At 1:45, The interview was stopped and Amanda was informed that she was now a suspect.

Sometime before 5:45, Amanda requested a pen and paper. She then wrote her letter.



Since there was no actual interrogation involving the letter (2nd statement of the night), it wasn't considered to be covered under the video-tape law.

Do we have a basic itinerary for what happened in the 4 hours then? Just curious.

 

[BobTheDonkey]

Do we have a basic itinerary for what happened in the 4 hours then? Just curious.

I would guess she sat in a jail cell, except for when they took her to the vending machines to see if she wanted something to eat *shrug*


That, to me, isn't the intent of the "movement restrained" bit of the law. I would expect that is intended to apply more directly to, say, being handcuffed, etc.