Amanda Knox guilty - all because of a cartwheel

[LondonJohn]

Has Amanda, her parents or her step-father ever stated that they were unsatisfied with her Italian legal representation? Might inadequate counsel be brought up as a point in her appeal?

It would be somewhat of a double-edged sword for AK or her family to essentially publicly accuse AK's own lawyer of any form of incompetence or unprofessionalism - even if they now recognised it with hindsight. I'd think it would be in their collective best interests to treat it as water under the bridge, and continue to assert their faith in the legal representation.

I'd imagine therefore that their best strategy would be to exhaust all the current appeals processes with their existing legal team, but maybe with an addition of one or two personnel. I'd be very surprised though if AK and her family hadn't had it pointed out to them by wider legal-oriented members of their "support team" just how foolish it was to allow AK to speak and write in the way she did in November/December 2007.

 

[RoseMontague]

I was unable to find a reference to the sweatshirt on Perugia Shock (it does not have a search function). I did find several references on PMF basically reiterating your question about a missing sweatshirt. If you go there and do a search for "Amanda +sweatshirt" you will get a list of posts mentioning the sweatshirt. Sorry I couldn't be of more help. Let us know if you find anything worth sharing.

here is the quote regarding the sweatshirt and the supreme court:

Laura and Filomena described a sweatshirt you were wearing on the day of the crime and that sweatshirt has not been found.

http://perugia-shock.blogspot.com/2008/04/amanda-q-and-with-supreme-court.html

That was the courts decision on April 1st. Six months later and this was still not found. The court obviously considered this important, yet Amanda had still not revealed the sweatshirt was in the washing machine? It does not make sense to me.

 

[LondonJohn]

Under the Italian Justice System could what Amanda and Raffaele wrote in their diaries be used against them in court?

I'm not actually sure about that. Can someone with a more in-depth knowledge of the trial supply details of whether the diaries were used by either the prosecution or defence.

But regardless of whether they were used at trial, AK's diary certainly harmed her in ways in which she seemingly naively didn't anticipate. It seems that her people were behind the release of the diary to a journalist, with the intention of publishing just the bits that bolstered AK's claims to innocence. Unfortunately, the juicier sex-related sections were also published all over the Italian press, thereby more than negating any positive publicity her camp thought she might have received. One thing seems clear: it would most certainly have been better for her if she hadn't written down anything in a diary at all - regardless of her guilt/innocence or involvement/non-involvement.

 

[BobTheDonkey]

It's over 300 pages! Much of which is pointless bickering and name-calling. I'm sure there are better sources of information.

Tell you what, why don't you count the posts that are pointless bickering and/or name-calling and see just how much of this thread consists of such posts.

I'd be willing to bet you're wrong and that there are far more posts discussing the relevant information. You might not agree with what has been proven (or not been proven, as the case may be), but that doesn't mean this has been a thread full of pointless bickering.

 

[BobTheDonkey]

I'm not actually sure about that. Can someone with a more in-depth knowledge of the trial supply details of whether the diaries were used by either the prosecution or defence.

But regardless of whether they were used at trial, AK's diary certainly harmed her in ways in which she seemingly naively didn't anticipate. It seems that her people were behind the release of the diary to a journalist, with the intention of publishing just the bits that bolstered AK's claims to innocence. Unfortunately, the juicier sex-related sections were also published all over the Italian press, thereby more than negating any positive publicity her camp thought she might have received. One thing seems clear: it would most certainly have been better for her if she hadn't written down anything in a diary at all - regardless of her guilt/innocence or involvement/non-involvement.

Yes, her diary (and other writings) definitely do her no favors. However, if we're going to get into "She'd be better off if..." discussion, it would be best if she had not been involved in Meredith's murder. Who knows, perhaps Meredith would still be alive.

 

[RWVBWL]

It's over 300 pages! Much of which is pointless bickering and name-calling. I'm sure there are better sources of information.

Hi Matthew Best,
I agree, 300 some-odd pages of, it seems, just an endless cycle. I saw the same while reading alot of the forum posts on Perugia Shock, there was, at times, thousands of posts arguing the same stuff. Not anymore though, for some reason.

Maybe it's time we, meaning yourself, myself, and other like minded JREF members who are here to discuss skepticism and critical thinking try to bring the discussion into the present and look towards what the future holds for this interesting case, instead of constantly re-hashing the same ol' arguments.
If not, I can see the moderators here on JREF moderating it heavily or even locking it sometime soon...
RWVBWL

 

[christianahannah]

I'm not actually sure about that. Can someone with a more in-depth knowledge of the trial supply details of whether the diaries were used by either the prosecution or defence.

But regardless of whether they were used at trial, AK's diary certainly harmed her in ways in which she seemingly naively didn't anticipate. It seems that her people were behind the release of the diary to a journalist, with the intention of publishing just the bits that bolstered AK's claims to innocence. Unfortunately, the juicier sex-related sections were also published all over the Italian press, thereby more than negating any positive publicity her camp thought she might have received. One thing seems clear: it would most certainly have been better for her if she hadn't written down anything in a diary at all - regardless of her guilt/innocence or involvement/non-involvement.

I lean towards no, the diaries couldn't be used against them unless they gave them to the authorities of their own free will, such as Amanda did with her November 6 memorandum, however, that is speculation on my part.

While there may have been some things in the diaries which might have hurt Amanda and Raffaele in the court of public opinion (I haven't read both diaries in their entirety so I'm not educated in the sex-related sections ) it did give Amanda and Raffaele the opportunity to present their version of what happened the night of Meredith's murder.

 

[LondonJohn]

I lean towards no, the diaries couldn't be used against them unless they gave them to the authorities of their own free will, such as Amanda did with her November 6 memorandum, however, that is speculation on my part.

While there may have been some things in the diaries which might have hurt Amanda and Raffaele in the court of public opinion (I haven't read both diaries in their entirety so I'm not educated in the sex-related sections ) it did give Amanda and Raffaele the opportunity to present their version of what happened the night of Meredith's murder.

I'm not sure if a "private diary" counts as confidential information in a legal context. In other words, I don't know if the law allows you to assign the same level of non-admissability to your diary as it does to a conversation between you and your lawyer or you and your minister. Maybe a diary is classified as a confidential discussion between a person and their heart

And it's perfectly legal (and proper) for the authorities to use things you say and write to third parties. If, for example, they intercept a letter a prisoner writes to his father while on remand, implicating himself in the crime, they can (with appropriate safeguards) introduce that in court in evidence. Likewise, a casual conversation with a fellow inmate can be used in evidence - although this is obviously a less desirable method for prosecutors to employ, since the witness by definition has "character issues" and potential reward issues, and since it usually requires recollection of unrecorded speech.

For all the above reasons, and more besides, the accepted legal advice to accused persons awaiting trail is to say or write down NOTHING that relates to the charges or the case in general. It really can only do harm to accused people - after all, assuming they've previously asserted their innocence in remand/arraignment hearings (otherwise, there would be no pending trial, only sentencing), then asserting innocence in speech or writing at that point is of little further help. In other words, there's only a "downside risk" of saying or writing things that either clearly demonstrate guilt, or which can be used to imply guilt (whether or not they actually participated in the crime).

 

[el buscador]

It was listed as part of Amanda's Q&A to the supreme court as one of the things they found suspicious. If I recall, it was eventually found with some of Meredith's clothes in the washing machine. I was wondering when they questioned Amanda about this and why she did not just tell them she threw it in the washer that morning when she went home to take a shower. I wanted to know if this was asked of her prior to the November 5th questioning. I just found this very strange at the time I read this because the Q&A was several months later (going by memory here) and this issue had still not been cleared up.

Did Amanda not know she put the sweater in the washer (supports her claims of memory lapse)? Did she not want them to know she put it in the washer (supports more suspicions)? What did she tell them when they asked her about it? I believe the Q&A was listed at Frank's if not other places. Why did it take so long to track this down and was it confirmed this was the sweatshirt Filomena described (I remember Laura as well, by your question I might be remembering things wrong here).

The missing sweater was never missing and was eventually found on Amanda's bed. Here is a quote from Perugia Shock: "The sweater on the bed that became the disappeared sweater."

http://perugia-shock.blogspot.com/2008/04/amanda-q-and-with-supreme-court.html

I read quite some time ago that the sweater was found on the bed but haven't been able to find the other sources.

 

[LondonJohn]

Yes, her diary (and other writings) definitely do her no favors. However, if we're going to get into "She'd be better off if..." discussion, it would be best if she had not been involved in Meredith's murder. Who knows, perhaps Meredith would still be alive.

Ah well maybe, maybe - but that's a different matter. Perhaps it would be better to rephrase my opinion as "any criminal suspect would be better off not saying or writing anything about the charges or the case in general, outside of confidential (and protected) discussions with his/her lawyers"...

 

[stilicho]

Why is ANYONE on here discussing a case in which they have no direct involvement?

That wasn't the question. The question was what was motivating you. If you don't want to answer it then that's fine; it's your business.

I've started with a blank page, and I'm perfectly willing to have my opinions challenged. If I'm presented with an argument that contradicts my prior opinion with which I agree, I'll happily change my position. You seem to be confusing "pre-conceptions" with "unfixed opinions".

No, you didn't start with a blank page. You started by pretending to be interested in seeing justice done. We answered that by explaining to you that there was a trial, evidence presented and challenged, a verdict, and a sentencing report. These facts don't seem to interest you very much and you took up the "Dan O gambit" by talking about how superior the British legal system was.

Fourthly, at what point did I state that I'm not interested in the minutiae of the case, as you allege? Minutiae are the building blocks of most cases, and of course I'm interested in them.

You certainly came to this realisation by a most oblique method. Are you in agreement with halides1 and Mary H that the evidence was contaminated? Just cough up what your beliefs are so that we can see where your starting point really is.

 

[stilicho]

Maybe it's time we, meaning yourself, myself, and other like minded JREF members who are here to discuss skepticism and critical thinking try to bring the discussion into the present and look towards what the future holds for this interesting case, instead of constantly re-hashing the same ol' arguments.

There will be two more appeals heard. Nothing much more than that. The best Sollecito and Knox can hope for is an eight year reduction in their sentences.

 

[stilicho]

Ah well maybe, maybe - but that's a different matter. Perhaps it would be better to rephrase my opinion as "any criminal suspect would be better off not saying or writing anything about the charges or the case in general, outside of confidential (and protected) discussions with his/her lawyers"...

Except that Knox's lawyer, especially, is known to have not only approved of her writing the 'diaries' but released portions of them on at least two occasions. This has been discussed here extensively already.

Do you know something that her own lawyers don't know?

 

[Alt+F4]

Are you in agreement with halides1 and Mary H that the evidence was contaminated?

Didn't Mary H say that she believes the evidence was planted?

 

[Mary_H]

Bob wrote:

From Amanda's handwritten statement on the 6th:

Quote:
I know that Raffaele has placed evidence against me, saying that I was not with him on the night of Meredith's murder

Quote:
One of the things I am sure that definitely happened the night on which Meredith was murdered was that Raffaele and I ate fairly late, I think around 11 in the evening

Quote:
I also know that the fact that I can't fully recall the events that I claim took place at Raffaele's home during the time that Meredith was murdered is incriminating. And I stand by my statements that I made last night about events that could have taken place in my home with Patrik, but I want to make very clear that these events seem more unreal to me that what I said before, that I stayed at Raffaele's house.

So, taking the last phrase, she is, undoubtedly, incontrovertibly stating that she had been asked about her whereabouts on the night of the murder prior to her lie about Patrick being the murderer.

Do you yield, Mary?

Where do you even get that? To be precise, there is no evidence whatsoever for what you are claiming. "Before" could be referring exclusively to what she said at the beginning of the interrogation, and it could be referring to what she said about her whereabouts without being asked.

Shall we discuss how you ignored that Amanda's email home on the 4th states that she's tired of answering 100 questions - and then goes immediately into the happenings of the night before the murder. I may be wrong, but I certainly received the impression from your previous post in regard to the email that Amanda started writing about the morning after the murder and only later discussed what had happened the night before - a bit of judicial rearrangement of the email, perhaps?

Why aren't you quoting the part you are referring to? Is this what you're talking about, in the second paragraph? "...was when i came home from spending the night at a friends house." That's all she says about the night before -- nothing about any "happenings."

Still don't yield? How about near the end of the email, where Amanda clearly states:

Quote:
"after sticking around at the housr
for a bit, the police told us to go to the station to give testimony,
which i did. i was in a room for six hours straight after that without
seeing anyone else, answering questions in italian for the first hour
and then they brought in an interpreter and he helped my out with the
details that i didnt know the words for. they asked me of course about
the the morning, the last time i saw her, and because i was the
closest to her, questions about her habits and her relationships."

So, Amanda was undoubtedly questioned about her whereabouts on the night prior to the murder immediately following the discovery of the body (well, approx an hour or so after).

Yield, Mary?

What is wrong with you, Bob? It says nothing in that paragraph about the night before -- in fact, it specifically says otherwise. It's as if you're subconsciously offering support for my argument instead of your own. Maybe it's time for you to switch sides.

 

[Mary_H]

Didn't Mary H say that she believes the evidence was planted?

Yes, I did. I also said that if we were to do a statistical analysis, we would find that the likelihood the evidence was planted would exceed the likelihood that the evidence existed, as discovered and presented by the prosecution.

 

[bucketoftea]

Yes, I did. I also said that if we were to do a statistical analysis, we would find that the likelihood the evidence was planted would exceed the likelihood that the evidence existed, as discovered and presented by the prosecution.

Baloney.
Yawn.

 

[Mary_H]

Baloney.
Yawn.

Burp.
Fart.
Scratch.

 

[Amazer]

Yes, I did. I also said that if we were to do a statistical analysis, we would find that the likelihood the evidence was planted would exceed the likelihood that the evidence existed, as discovered and presented by the prosecution.

Why haven't you done this statistical analysis yet? Or hired someone to do it for you? I'm sure in the large group of experts that are convinced of Amanda's innocence, there is at least one person who could do that.

Instead of working on the assumption that your claim is correct, why don't you try to prove your claim? Once you do that, I can take your claim more seriously. Without it, it's only so much hot air which can be, and is, safely ignored.

 

[Danceme]

Thanks for the warm welcome, RWVBWL.

Concerning those cell phone "actions" I don't think Rudy was trying to turn off Meredith's phone. What, he tried for 15 minutes?..........and why the long delays between the "actions"? You would expect multiple "actions" over, say, a minute of elapsed time. It's easy, especially under low light, to press the wrong buttons (I do it all the time), so maybe Meredith was using her phone to compose a text, which she later erased.
///

I think it's possible the phones were in somebody's jeans pocket and the keys may have been inadvertently pressed from pressure. I know I've done this many times myself. I've taken my phone out of my pocket and its been connected to something. I have also received calls from my daughter in which I can hear people talk in the background but it was her phone calling me, on its own, for exactly the same reasons. It's one possibility anyway.

here is the quote regarding the sweatshirt and the supreme court:

http://perugia-shock.blogspot.com/2008/04/amanda-q-and-with-supreme-court.html

That was the courts decision on April 1st. Six months later and this was still not found. The court obviously considered this important, yet Amanda had still not revealed the sweatshirt was in the washing machine? It does not make sense to me.

Is this true? I have never read it was found in the washing machine. Do you have a link to this? The only thing I've ever read on the sweatshirt was on Frank's site, stating it was found on the bed, as pointed out in another post.