Amanda Knox guilty - all because of a cartwheel

[uk_dave]

Coerced interrogation.

It is however clear that you don't believe it's possible. You reject science in favor of the old ideas that putting people under stress is the proper way to deal with a suspect. Lack of sleep, yelling, screaming and hitting are all reasonable tools for sweating a confession out of a suspect.

That's right, 'cos once you've got the confession it's straight to jail for them, no need for a trial.....no, wait........ damn inconvenient facts!!

 

[Fulcanelli]

Coerced interrogation.

It is however clear that you don't believe it's possible. You reject science in favor of the old ideas that putting people under stress is the proper way to deal with a suspect. Lack of sleep, yelling, screaming and hitting are all reasonable tools for sweating a confession out of a suspect.

Hyperbole. Zero evidence of coercion, merely an assertion, a point of faith by you people that is groundless. You also ignore Raffaele's interrogation where he dropped Amanda in it and admitted they'd been telling lies.

Amanda wasn't deprived of sleep and with the 'hitting' piffle, again you exaggerate.

 

[Oliebol]

But left everything else of value, unlike what real robbers would do. They were taken in a half arsed attempt to make it look like a robbery and that's one of reasons the staging was amateurish.

That's just not true. I had a look into several burglaries lately and each time the robbers took cash and jewellery only. TV, laptop, Chanel glasses...all left behind.

 

[Amazer]

In what sense was the breakin amateurish? Forgetting your alternate (or rather the official) version of events for a moment, what is odd about the breakin? The door is wide open, the valuables are missing, the body is locked into a room (to delay discovery, or just out of guilt and panic).

What's odd is the fact that the very first room that the burglar was in, is ransacked but none of the valuable items have been taken. What is odd is that he enters through a window which has some obvious difficulties as compared for example with the kitchen window.

I may be the exception, but I would struggle to give you a chronological account of what I did between breakfast and lunch this morning, let alone last night. Inconsistencies really aren't all that surprising, especially given the intensive interrogation techniques employed (which would NOT be allowed or admissable as evidence in the UK).

I would have no problem giving a near chronological account of my activities for the last few days. I've checked with my wife and she too could give you a near chronological breakdown of her activities. (And honestly, i expect hers would be better/nearer to the actual chronological order). Even so, i'd expect minor differences to crop up if we were asked separately to give account.
However, not to the degree where I don't mention a shower at all and she does elaborates on the erotic shower. I could be expected to tell that we talked about some personal/emotional stuff while my wife would be able to go into detail what was said and which order to the precise detail. So while I agree that minor inconsistencies are to be expected, in the broad outlines the alibis should match.

This smells of confirmation bias. Its simply not acceptable, in my opinion, to come up with your own (or rather, the Prosecutor's) version of events and then cherry pick and shoehorn the facts in order to back it up. Not only that, but you seem to accept that the knife recovered and identified in the trial as the supposed murder weapon was not in fact the weapon. Given that much of the weight of conviction of Knox lay on that double-dna kitchen knife, this concession alone is enough for a wrongful conviction.

Care to point out which facts i'm cherry picking and shoehorning? Which facts am I ignoring that would considerably change the scenario?
As for the kitchen knife... given the facts that have been made available and the lack of a coherent theory by the defense how contamination could have occurred, I am fairly confident that it is in fact the knife that was used in the murder of Meredith.

I am a lawyer, and have had direct interaction with Italy's legal system. I have limited faith in the Judge's ability to separate fact from fiction when under intense media and political pressure.

Perhaps that is true. You still need evidence that media and political pressure were applied and that one or both negatively influenced the judge.

The fact that it wasnt should (and in the UK, would) have ruled it out as evidence. the knife would also never have been admitted in the UK.

Different systems, different priorities. Even then, the delay in collecting that evidence doesn't explain how Sollecito's DNA came to be so prominently on the clasp.

Simply put,had the case been tried in the UK both would have been aquitted and, quite possible, the prosecuter and police would be under scrutiny.

Perhaps.

 

[christianahannah]

In reading Raffaele's diary at PMF, he says he prepared lunch for he and Amanda at her flat on November 1.

I wonder if he brought any cooking utensils from his flat to hers to prepare lunch?

 

[RWVBWL]

In reading Raffaele's diary at PMF, he says he prepared lunch for he and Amanda at her flat on November 1.

I wonder if he brought any cooking utensils from his flat to hers to prepare lunch?

Hi christianhannah,
Well, he would not have had to bring that big ol' knife, since Amanda was carrying it around town for "protection".

Question for the "knife as protection" theorists:
Since Amanda had just met Raffaele at a classical music concert a week or so earlier, what was she carrying around town for "protection" prior to meeting Raffaele?
Another huge knife, or maybe something smaller, such as pepper spray? Hmmm...
RWVBWL

 

[tsig]

Coerced interrogation.

It is however clear that you don't believe it's possible. You reject science in favor of the old ideas that putting people under stress is the proper way to deal with a suspect. Lack of sleep, yelling, screaming and hitting are all reasonable tools for sweating a confession out of a suspect.

Why were the police trying to sweat a confession out of her?

Did they have something against her?

 

[Kestrel]

I would have no problem giving a near chronological account of my activities for the last few days. I've checked with my wife and she too could give you a near chronological breakdown of her activities. (And honestly, i expect hers would be better/nearer to the actual chronological order). Even so, i'd expect minor differences to crop up if we were asked separately to give account.
However, not to the degree where I don't mention a shower at all and she does elaborates on the erotic shower. I could be expected to tell that we talked about some personal/emotional stuff while my wife would be able to go into detail what was said and which order to the precise detail. So while I agree that minor inconsistencies are to be expected, in the broad outlines the alibis should match.

Has anything stressful happened to you during the last few days? For example was a close friend murdered or did the police interrogate you for most of a night?

 

[Kestrel]

Why were the police trying to sweat a confession out of her?

Did they have something against her?

Chief investigator Giobbi claimed that he knew both Amanda and Raffaele were guilty before their interrogations on the night of Nov. 5-6.

So at this point, it was just a matter of extracting confessions from suspects that you already convinced are guilty.

 

[Amazer]

Has anything stressful happened to you during the last few days? For example was a close friend murdered or did the police interrogate you for most of a night?

Yes, as a matter of fact something very stressful has happened in the last few days. And no, it hasn't effected my ability to recall what I've been doing over the past few days.

 

[odeed]

The way I see the confession thing, is that she did not really confess but tried to blame an innocent man, after her boyfriend of a few days dropped her in it by no longer backing up their alibi.

This was after 53 40 19 13 3 hours of interrogation, by a young 20 year old girl woman, who was not very intelligent, and who had not eaten for a few hours beforehand.

 

[Kestrel]

Yes, as a matter of fact something very stressful has happened in the last few days. And no, it hasn't effected my ability to recall what I've been doing over the past few days.

Most people seem to think that way, but scientific tests show that we are not nearly as good at recalling events as we believe we are.

That is why eyewitness accounts are often so far off the mark.

 

[bucketoftea]

But left everything else of value, unlike what real robbers would do. They were taken in a half arsed attempt to make it look like a robbery and that's one of reasons the staging was amateurish.

I vote sub-amateur for flinging the clothes around before breaking the window.

 

[tsig]

Chief investigator Giobbi claimed that he knew both Amanda and Raffaele were guilty before their interrogations on the night of Nov. 5-6.

So at this point, it was just a matter of extracting confessions from suspects that you already convinced are guilty.

It's odd then that the police accepted her story about Patrick.

 

[el buscador]

It's odd then that the police accepted her story about Patrick.

Your right, tsig, it is odd.

 

[tsig]

Most people seem to think that way, but scientific tests show that we are not nearly as good at recalling events as we believe we are.
That is why eyewitness accounts are often so far off the mark.

How about recalling events that never happened?

 

[stilicho]

You two ought to do a little research before you start taking Bill Edelblute's word for anything. He notoriously leaves out a great many of the details when he writes his slanted opinion pieces.

Was Edelblute lying? Did Ms Dempsey talk about AK's makeup or not?

 

[katy_did]

I've discussed that with Greggy too. His doubts are qualified by his own admission that he's stating this from an ocean away. Why do you suppose that his opinion hasn't transformed into outright advocacy in the same way Waterbury and Halkides have done?

You'll have to ask him that. I'm only really interested in his take on the knife evidence, which I think is particularly significant because he otherwise believes them to be guilty.

This is akin to saying my scientific opinion is valid because I put on a lab coat and peered through a microscope a few times. I will let real scientists take on Waterbury about his allegations regarding the forensics but what evidence does he have that RG was a police informant? And what is the source of his other allegations?

I think Mark Waterbury's qualifications somewhat exceed putting on a lab coat and peering through a microscope! He certainly has far more knowledge on the science of the case than I do, and than the majority of us here, so for that reason I'm looking forward to his perspective. The fact Mark and Chris's (and others') qualifications are attacked on here is, I believe, because people simply don't have the scientific knowledge to attack their arguments. Much easier, then, to attack the person or their qualifications.

The problem with your statement about other scientists challenging Waterbury with regard to his take on the forensics is that, well, none of them have done, have they? The posts from Greggy I quoted illustrate that point: even scientists who believe Knox and Sollecito to be guilty think that the knife evidence should never have been admitted. Personally I'd love to read a discussion between scientists who have opposing takes on the knife evidence. Trouble is, there aren't any scientists advocating the opposite take to Waterbury. In view of that, I can't see any way that the knife evidence will survive the appeal(s).

As regards Mark's take on Rudy being an informant, well, that's a different issue of course. It's certainly interesting that Rudy appears to have been caught by the police multiple times, yet never arrested. Apparently the defense wanted to include evidence that he was involved in six separate crimes in the weeks leading up to the murder, but weren't allowed to admit it because it's not directly linked to the case. But anyway, that's a different discussion.

 

[katy_did]

Perhaps I missed it katy, but what expertise does Dr. Waterbury have in regard to how Perugian law enforcement recruits, uses and treats informants?

I'm talking about Dr Waterbury's scientific expertise, of course.

 

[stilicho]

There has definitely been a miscarriage of justice in the sense that the procedures used (evidence collection, analysis, interviews etc) were wrong. I am pretty confident from all I have read that Knox, though pretty odd, was not involved in the killing.

This old chestnut again.

I wonder why people continue to portray AK as unusual, odd, or eccentric. There are thousands--if not millions--of irresponsible young adults all over the world. They don't all live in Seattle. They don't all murder their housemates.

From what I've read of Knox--in her own words or from those who've known her--there's not much to distinguish her apart from a 26-year prison sentence.