Continuation - Discussion of the Amanda Knox case

[BobTheDonkey]

From reading your posts, it appears that (a) you have already decided what the "truth" is, in your own mind;

As have you...that's what happens with these things *shrug*

(b) you refuse to acknowledge that there are serious problems with the manner in which the investigation was conducted;

What problems, precisely, are you referring to?

(c) you refuse to acknowledge that there are serious problems with the manner in which the interrogations were conducted;

What problems, precisely, are you referring to? The unsupported allegations of abuse? That she was questioned harshly after her alibi was dropped/the Police found she'd like in a murder investigation?

(d) you refuse to acknowledge that the convictions of Ms. Knox and Mr. Sollecito are dangerous (using the terminology of Canadian law for your convenience);

Dangerous in what way?

(e) you are not at all interested in anything that challenges or questions those problems with these convictions.

I don't know about Stilicho, but I definitely am interested in problems or challenges to these convictions. So far, however, every argument against the convictions has boiled down to general contamination claims and/or conspiracy claims (i.e. Police were out to "get her"). There is no evidence to support these claims, therefore I do not accept them.

Yet you seek to obtain information from the defence that could potentially compromise the pending appeals if it is posted prematurely.

How, exactly, could the release of information on Rudy's criminal past have any affect, whatsoever, on undermining the evidence against Amanda and Raffaele? Rudy as a lone killer is the ultimate red herring argument, and is not supported by the evidence. So far, those who argue Rudy acted alone have been able to fit the evidence to this scenario only through begging the question.

I say that this is improper and that nobody should be doing this.

If Mark Waterbury, et al. have released this information to Public Sites that are as unaffiliated with the Knox PR campaign as they have claimed, then this information has been released to the public realm. The argument that this information is so vital to the case that it cannot be released to the public in general is negated by the fact that it has been released to members of the public whom are not part of the Defense.

 

[Amazer]

Coming from you that means nothing. You have never shown me anything that would lead me to respect your position.

Sure, that's one way of minimizing their failures... not a very good one. But more or less in line with what I've come to expect from you.

 

[LashL]

As have you

You're quite wrong. I do not profess to know what the "truth" is at all. But I see serious problems with the convictions that deserve examination, and in my opinion, anyone who is objectively assessing the matter, as opposed to anyone who has taken an entrenched position, should acknowledge that.

What problems, precisely, are you referring to?

For starters, in my view, it is inexcusable that the questioning of Ms. Knox and Mr. Sollecito was not taped via audio and/or video. There is no excuse for that, and the lack of audio or video serves only to permit the Perugia police to say whatever they want. These interrogations did not occur in 1930 but in 2007 - and the Perugia police were perfectly well equipped to record them, but they either made a deliberate decision not to do so, or they made a deliberate decision to say that they did not do so. Either way, it's inexcusable and only serves the purposes of the Perugia police, and does not serve the ends of justice.

Secondly, it is inexcusable that the Perugia police did not seek or obtain DNA samples from the tenants of the cottage and known visitors to the cottage. I cannot even imagine why any objective person would argue that this should not have been done. There are multiple "unknown" samples found at the cottage, but the Perugia police didn't even try to identify or eliminate them by means that were readily available to them. No telling whether this is incompetence or deliberate malfeasance. Either way, it's wrong and the continuing failure of the Perugia police to ignore the obvious is inexcusable.

What problems, precisely, are you referring to? The unsupported allegations of abuse? That she was questioned harshly after her alibi was dropped/the Police found she'd like in a murder investigation?

In my view, it is inexcusable that the Perugia police have not made videotapes of their interrogations of Ms. Knox available to the defence, and to the extent that they claim none exist, that can only be as a result of a deliberate decision on their part to ensure that their own actions were not recorded. I've been involved with police interrogations for several years, and I know for a fact that sometimes, unfortunately, police are abusive to suspects and sometimes they deliberately ensure that no recordings are made of their actions in such circumstances. I have no faith in the Perugia police in the circumstances of Ms. Knox's interrogation whatsoever. They had the means and ability to record those interrogations, but deliberately chose not to do so.

How convenient for them to later claim that she said X or Y and that they (the police) didn't do A or B. And don't even get me started about the slander bit, which would never in a thousand years even be considered in Canada as a justiciable matter. But the reality is that there is no legitimate reason for the Perugia police to have made a conscious decision to avoid video during Ms. Knox's questioning. There is no excuse for the Perugia police not to tape the events in the circumstances, particularly since video of the events would provide absolutely clear and unambiguous evidence as to the "voluntariness" of any statements made, which would only help the police/prosecution if the statements were actually voluntary (so who really believes that they would forego that opportunity?)

That's just for starters.

Dangerous in what way?

As I said, I used the terminology as used in Canadian law. "Dangerous" in this context means unsafe, based on insufficient admissible and reliable evidence, or quite possibly a wrongful conviction.

So far, however, every argument against the convictions has boiled down to general contamination claims and/or conspiracy claims (i.e. Police were out to "get her"). There is no evidence to support these claims, therefore I do not accept them.

If you cannot even fathom or consider the obvious problems with the convictions of Ms. Knox and Mr. Sollecito, then all I can say is that I hope that you are never accused of a crime yourself and that you are never on a jury.

I do not know whether Ms. Knox or Mr. Sollecito are guilty or not, but I certainly see significant problems with the investigation, the interrogations, and the evidence that are easily sufficient to amount to reasonable doubt.

And as much as you may wish to reverse the burden of proof, there was and is no onus upon the accused to provide evidence of their innocence, any more than it would be incumbent upon you to provide evidence of your innocence if you were falsely accused of a crime. Rather, the burden of proof is on the prosecution.

These convictions are dangerous due to:
Faulty investigation; failure to properly secure the scene; failure to adhere to proper investigation techniques; failure to collect evidence in a timely fashion; failure to process the crime scence properly; failure to abide by reasonable standards for processing a crime scene; failure to collect or analyze relevant forensic evidence properly; failure to utilize appropriate experts to assess the forensic evidence gathered (as insufficient as it was); possible (probable) coercive and unconstitutional interrogations; failure to advise the accused of their right to counsel in a timely fashion; failure to provide the accused with counsel in a timely fashion; questionable motives by the prosecution throughout; inappropriate "trial by media" in advance of the trial; prosecution leaking documents to the media before trial; prosecutors/police celebrating their "solving" of the crime both inappropriately and prematurely in the media even though no charges were actually laid until nearly a year later; locking up suspects for a year before charging them with an offence - permitted or not by the vagaries of Italian law, this should be unconscionable to any right-thinking person; and so on and so on.

Whether Ms. Knox and Mr. Sollecito are guilty or not (and again, I take no position on that except to the extent that I say that the evidence presented against them at trial was insufficient to convict) there is so much about the investigation, the interrogations and the trial that is utterly wrong that any right thinking person ought to be questioning it. I do not at all understand how anyone can fail to see any problems with these convictions.

How, exactly, could the release of information on Rudy's criminal past have any affect, whatsoever, on undermining the evidence against Amanda and Raffaele?

Anything that the defence seeks to introduce at the appeal ought not be disseminated on the Internet for what should be obvious reasons.

If Mark Waterbury, et al. have released this information to Public Sites that are as unaffiliated with the Knox PR campaign as they have claimed, then this information has been released to the public realm. The argument that this information is so vital to the case that it cannot be released to the public in general is negated by the fact that it has been released to members of the public whom are not part of the Defense.

As I said above, anything that the defence seeks to introduce on the appeal ought not be disseminated on the Internet for what should be obvious reasons.

And that people whose intent and interests are clearly contrary to those of Ms. Knox and Mr. Sollecito are asking for such information to be publicly disseminated prior to the appeal ought to be sufficient to show that its disclosure on the Internet before the trial would be wrong, without further discussion of the legal issues involved.

 

[stilicho]

You seem to be rambling quite incoherently, but you also seem to be conceding that the investigation and interrogation by the Perugia police was indeed faulty. That's a start (if I'm reading your post correctly).

I have no idea what "question" it is that you wish me to respond to, as I cannot glean it from your recent posts. Can you clarify that?

And I note that you have still ignored the bulk of my post, despite me having to post it twice. It would be a whole lot easier to communicate with you if you actually responded in a coherent fashion to what is posted, rather than going off on tangents and posting stream of consciousness posts that are incomprehensible insofar as the actual discussion is concerned. I'm confident that you are capable of conversation, but when you post stuff that is non-responsive, it's tough to follow whatever stream of consciousness you're on about at any given time.

Any time you wish to address my post directly, that would be good.

Evasive again. Let's start all over again as you either forgot what you had said or you're deliberately ignoring it:

(a) you have already decided what the "truth" is, in your own mind;

I don't have to second-guess the results of the investigators or the courts. I don't have to second-guess the conflicting opinions of defence experts such as Introna and Torre.

The evidence was presented and the defence teams threw every high-paid expert at it that they could. The three were convicted by a unanimous decision.

If the appeal is successful in reducing their sentences then I will certainly find that acceptable. I don't have to put the word "truth" into scare quotes. The evidence points to multiple attackers and a vigorous attempt to divert and distract investigators from the truth.

(b) you refuse to acknowledge that there are serious problems with the manner in which the investigation was conducted;

There were arguably problems in the way the investigation was conducted. It would be difficult to find a criminal investigation in which some fault could not be found. How many of those problems changed the weight of evidence against the three killers?

(c) you refuse to acknowledge that there are serious problems with the manner in which the interrogations were conducted;

Those problems were addressed by the courts. Certain statements were declared to be inadmissible. Convictions were secured without them.

(d) you refuse to acknowledge that the convictions of Ms. Knox and Mr. Sollecito are dangerous (using the terminology of Canadian law for your convenience);

You should explain your opinion more fully.

(e) you are not at all interested in anything that challenges or questions those problems with these convictions.

Where is the coherent and cohesive alternate narrative? The defence teams didn't provide one. None of the FOA-style leaders posting here have provided one. Dan O is the only one to take a stab at it and he started his narrative with the clause that none of the evidence pointing to Sollecito and Knox could be considered.

If you find my carefully penned replies to your challenges to be incoherent then there's not much I can do to assist you further. Your challenges were interjections into the middle of an explanation about the history of a lie--that Guede was employed by the Perugia police and allowed to commit crimes throughout the city. That's a strongly worded allegation (couched in the JAQ style of conspiracy forums) and has no evidence to substantiate it. You might want to apply some of your critical analysis there, too.

 

[stilicho]

As I said, I used the terminology as used in Canadian law. "Dangerous" in this context means unsafe, based on insufficient admissible and reliable evidence, or quite possibly a wrongful conviction.

So that's what you meant.

Which specific pieces of evidence do you find unreliable? So far we've had strange arguments such as luminol being useless as a forensic tool. Would you go into a courtroom to defend your client with that argument? That's simply one example from the FOA types here and not even the real-life lawyers argued such a thing.

The best argument I've found so far is from Greggy at the PMF. He argued that Stefanoni should publish the results of her methodology (which only affects a single piece of the mountain of evidence against Knox and Sollecito) so other scientists could use it. He also said the case would have been stronger if they had omitted it.

Try to be a bit more specific about what you find wrong with the case. So far, you've argued vaguely about impropriety and wrongful conviction without really saying what you mean.

 

[stilicho]

For starters, in my view, it is inexcusable that the questioning of Ms. Knox and Mr. Sollecito was not taped via audio and/or video.

Absolutely agreed.

Secondly, it is inexcusable that the Perugia police did not seek or obtain DNA samples from the tenants of the cottage and known visitors to the cottage.

This does not always happen, even in Canada. No cites because I am not in law enforcement. I only have anecdotal evidence and that won't be acceptable to you. But based on my experience, visitors and tenants of a location that becomes a crimescene are not invariably sought for DNA samples.

In my view, it is inexcusable that the Perugia police have not made videotapes of their interrogations of Ms. Knox available to the defence, and to the extent that they claim none exist, that can only be as a result of a deliberate decision on their part to ensure that their own actions were not recorded.

I think we've all mainly agreed that audio-video recordings of police interviews are an invaluable tool for law enforcement. I've produced links to studies proving they help. In this case, however, you'd also have needed a recording of Knox asking for paper and pen to write out her 06 NOV 2007 confirmation of the statements she'd made in the wee hours. She's really the kind of person who should have her lawyer on her speed dial as most experienced drug-dealers do. You just never know when she's going to blurt out something incriminating.

I do not know whether Ms. Knox or Mr. Sollecito are guilty or not...

We'll leave it up to the courts then.

And that people whose intent and interests are clearly contrary to those of Ms. Knox and Mr. Sollecito are asking for such information to be publicly disseminated prior to the appeal ought to be sufficient to show that its disclosure on the Internet before the trial would be wrong, without further discussion of the legal issues involved.

So you can lie as long as you also claim confidentiality. That makes no sense. If Waterbury is spilling the beans about a confidential matter then the FOA leadership on this board should sever their connections with him even more quickly than I'd suggested.

I would prefer to argue he's just a liar rather than someone deliberately setting out to compromise a court case. Do you think Waterbury is really so devious?

 

[Mary_H]

Try to be a bit more specific about what you find wrong with the case. So far, you've argued vaguely about impropriety and wrongful conviction without really saying what you mean.

LashL was pretty specific in her last post, sti. In fact, her description of the problems with the case and her condemnation of them were so succinct and accurate, I think all the pro-Amanda websites should publish her post right next to Mark Waterbury's.

Instead of going round and round again about all the pieces of evidence that have been argued to death, I think it would be interesting to examine the phenomenon Malkmus alluded to earlier today; that is, that given the legal system in Perugia, there was never a chance Amanda would have been acquitted, regardless of how well the defense presented its case. First trials for murder always end in guilty verdicts there, or so I have heard from other people who are familiar with the culture.

LashL is not wrong about all the problems she listed. The question, then, becomes how a modern court system could pull off a guilty verdict in the face of all those problems. Italy's court customs obviously are entrenched, and they have a different world view from the U.S or Britain. Magistrates and attorneys both have financial incentives for taking three trials to do the work of one -- does that mean they automatically look at every case in terms of three trials now? Even a subconscious acceptance of that system would have a strong effect on how everything is played out.

Add to that what appears to be an authoritarian system in which everyone is afraid or at least hesitant to blow the whistle or rock the boat when it comes to the prosecution's case. Mignini plays pretty fast and loose with those slander suits.

Italy's (or at least Perugia's) cultural attitudes about sex, sex roles, careers, leisure and authority all deserve to be looked at in depth.

 

[stilicho]

LashL was pretty specific in her last post, sti. In fact, her description of the problems with the case and her condemnation of them were so succinct and accurate, I think all the pro-Amanda websites should publish her post right next to Mark Waterbury's.

Fill your boots. Some of what she says is succinct and accurate. Some of it is coloured in the scheme of advocacy. Some of it is misrepresentative. Most of it is focused on methodology rather than the evidence. It might suggest a case for reform in certain areas yet doesn't begin to address the mountain of evidence collected, examined, cross-examined, and weighed in convicting Rudy, Amanda, and Raffaele.

Instead of going round and round again about all the pieces of evidence that have been argued to death, I think it would be interesting to examine the phenomenon Malkmus alluded to earlier today; that is, that given the legal system in Perugia, there was never a chance Amanda would have been acquitted, regardless of how well the defense presented its case. First trials for murder always end in guilty verdicts there, or so I have heard from other people who are familiar with the culture.

Any statistics? Always means 100%.

LashL is not wrong about all the problems she listed. The question, then, becomes how a modern court system could pull off a guilty verdict in the face of all those problems. Italy's court customs obviously are entrenched, and they have a different world view from the U.S or Britain. Magistrates and attorneys both have financial incentives for taking three trials to do the work of one -- does that mean they automatically look at every case in terms of three trials now? Even a subconscious acceptance of that system would have a strong effect on how everything is played out.

Tough to imagine that anyone--with as much evidence against them as Rudy, Raffaele, and Amanda had--would have been acquitted in Canada. This wasn't a case with no body, no murder weapon, no DNA evidence, no print evidence, etc. This was a pretty routine case except for the number of those participating.

Add to that what appears to be an authoritarian system in which everyone is afraid or at least hesitant to blow the whistle or rock the boat when it comes to the prosecution's case. Mignini plays pretty fast and loose with those slander suits.

Italy's (or at least Perugia's) cultural attitudes about sex, sex roles, careers, leisure and authority all deserve to be looked at in depth.

I don't like the slander suits either. They make the authorities appear petty.

But consider the rampant impugning of the character and professionalism of the investigators, the forensic scientists, the judiciary, the PMs--even the Postal Police--taking place here. Each individual is considered a liar and a fraud. There is nobody missed in the scattergun assault on people who were merely doing their jobs in untangling the complexities of this case.

I don't think anyone who feels that Rudy, Amanda, and Raffaele are all guilty as charged would also suggest that American or Ivorian cultural attitudes were reflected in the actions of their currently most-famous citizens.

 

[LondonJohn]

You seem to be rambling quite incoherently, but you also seem to be conceding that the investigation and interrogation by the Perugia police was indeed faulty. That's a start (if I'm reading your post correctly).

I have no idea what "question" it is that you wish me to respond to, as I cannot glean it from your recent posts. Can you clarify that?

And I note that you have still ignored the bulk of my post, despite me having to post it twice. It would be a whole lot easier to communicate with you if you actually responded in a coherent fashion to what is posted, rather than going off on tangents and posting stream of consciousness posts that are incomprehensible insofar as the actual discussion is concerned. I'm confident that you are capable of conversation, but when you post stuff that is non-responsive, it's tough to follow whatever stream of consciousness you're on about at any given time.

Any time you wish to address my post directly, that would be good.

Welcome to my world! I find it almost impossible to conduct any sort of meaningful dialogue with this poster (and a few others), owing to the problems you've also repeatedly found happening to you.

To my mind, I - and many other posters on here - have been raising coherent and reasonable questions on this thread concerning the safety of Amanda Knox's (particularly) and Raffaaele Sollecito's (often) convictions. Yet, as a general rule, these questions are met, by certain "usual suspect" posters, with a mixture of straw man responses and zealous restatements of how I (and others) are either uninformed, stupid, or even paid stooges for the Amanda Knox PR machine.

I know it's off-topic, but you might want to have a quick look at the PMF forum to see where many of these people's true feelings are being vented. It's an astonishing mixture of self-congratulation (on being right about every aspect of this case) and vitriolic/insulting personal attacks on a number of people - myself included. I am imagining that these attacks are intended to discredit me and others, and I'd imagine that they also serve some form of self-reinforcing purpose among that group as well. A psychiatrist might have a field day....

 

[Fiona]

To those who believe that Ms. Knox and Mr. Sollecito are not guilty, you must not permit yourselves to be goaded into posting things pertaining to the appeals prematurely as that will only serve to assist those who seek to see Ms. Knox and Mr. Sollecito rot in jail, even if they are not guilty. Do not help them in their quest to see these two individuals locked up for the rest of their natural lives by rising to the bait and disclosing information related to the appeals of which they are not already aware.

That is a very strange thing to write, LashL. I do not think there is any evidence whatsoever that anyone takes that view. Given that you have been moderating this thread I think you should now stand down from doing so. While you have not named any particular person as the target of this profound insult that is not enough to redeem you

 

[BobTheDonkey]

You're quite wrong. I do not profess to know what the "truth" is at all. But I see serious problems with the convictions that deserve examination, and in my opinion, anyone who is objectively assessing the matter, as opposed to anyone who has taken an entrenched position, should acknowledge that.

I am not so entrenched as you believe. Rather, I find that the arguments for Amanda (and Raffaele) being wrongly convicted are lacking. I would gladly change my view if I were shown a good reason to do so. Again, all that has been presented thus far is general claims of contamination against only the evidence that points to Raffaele/Amanda (no one, not one person, is willing to claim the DNA evidence against Rudy is contaminated).

For starters, in my view, it is inexcusable that the questioning of Ms. Knox and Mr. Sollecito was not taped via audio and/or video. There is no excuse for that, and the lack of audio or video serves only [to permit the Perugia police to say whatever they want. These interrogations did not occur in 1930 but in 2007 - and the Perugia police were perfectly well equipped to record them, but they either made a deliberate decision not to do so, or they made a deliberate decision to say that they did not do so. Either way, it's inexcusable and only serves the purposes of the Perugia police, and does not serve the ends of justice.

I agree. However, Amanda's courtroom testimony regarding this interview turned interrogation is what I reference when I state that Amanda, herself, implicated Patrick. According to her testimony, the Police asked her who she had sent the text to. She refused to answer ("I forgot"/"I don't know"). This was followed by the Police telling her to remember and asking her again and again to whom the text was sent and who she was protecting. At no point in her testimony did she claim that Patrick was suggested as the murderer by the Police. She then blurted out that Patrick was the murderer, that "It's him. He did it. He's a bad man."

Whether she was hit or not is a difficult issue to broach and I agree that a video/taping of the session should have been made to protect both sides.

Of course, following her "dream session" with the Police, Amanda was made a formal suspect. This includes being informed of her rights (akin to informing a suspect in the US of their Miranda Rights). She later chose to ignore those rights to give her statement to Mignini. Note that this second statement was only allowed as evidence in regards to the slander charge. Neither of these statements were used to convict Amanda of murder.

Could it have been better? Sure. Was Amanda coerced into accusing Patrick? I doubt it.

Secondly, it is inexcusable that the Perugia police did not seek or obtain DNA samples from the tenants of the cottage and known visitors to the cottage. I cannot even imagine why any objective person would argue that this should not have been done. There are multiple "unknown" samples found at the cottage, but the Perugia police didn't even try to identify or eliminate them by means that were readily available to them. No telling whether this is incompetence or deliberate malfeasance. Either way, it's wrong and the continuing failure of the Perugia police to ignore the obvious is inexcusable.

According to Charlie, there were no unassigned full DNA samples. Those that remain unassigned do so because the DNA was too fragmented. Additionally, all the other tenants of the building had solid alibis for the night of the murder. Amanda and Raffaele were the only two interviewed who didn't.

So while I can understand your point, there is nothing that further DNA samples could have done to counter the evidence against Amanda.

In my view, it is inexcusable that the Perugia police have not made videotapes of their interrogations of Ms. Knox available to the defence, and to the extent that they claim none exist, that can only be as a result of a deliberate decision on their part to ensure that their own actions were not recorded. I've been involved with police interrogations for several years, and I know for a fact that sometimes, unfortunately, police are abusive to suspects and sometimes they deliberately ensure that no recordings are made of their actions in such circumstances. I have no faith in the Perugia police in the circumstances of Ms. Knox's interrogation whatsoever. They had the means and ability to record those interrogations, but deliberately chose not to do so.

How convenient for them to later claim that she said X or Y and that they (the police) didn't do A or B. And don't even get me started about the slander bit, which would never in a thousand years even be considered in Canada as a justiciable matter. But the reality is that there is no legitimate reason for the Perugia police to have made a conscious decision to avoid video during Ms. Knox's questioning. There is no excuse for the Perugia police not to tape the events in the circumstances, particularly since video of the events would provide absolutely clear and unambiguous evidence as to the "voluntariness" of any statements made, which would only help the police/prosecution if the statements were actually voluntary (so who really believes that they would forego that opportunity?)

Again, I agree - except for one thing: I don't reference the testimony of the officers, I reference Amanda's testimony.

As I said, I used the terminology as used in Canadian law. "Dangerous" in this context means unsafe, based on insufficient admissible and reliable evidence, or quite possibly a wrongful conviction.

Keep in mind that we are not priviledged to all the information/evidence the Court was privy to. Therefore, this is nothing less than an assumption based on a few advocate sites.

If you cannot even fathom or consider the obvious problems with the convictions of Ms. Knox and Mr. Sollecito, then all I can say is that I hope that you are never accused of a crime yourself and that you are never on a jury.

Let's not make this personal, k thx Ms Mod

I do not know whether Ms. Knox or Mr. Sollecito are guilty or not, but I certainly see significant problems with the investigation, the interrogations, and the evidence that are easily sufficient to amount to reasonable doubt.

I don't. Just because someone comes out yelling "contamination" does not mean we just throw the evidence out as unreliable. To do so would render the usage of DNA impossible.

And as much as you may wish to reverse the burden of proof, there was and is no onus upon the accused to provide evidence of their innocence, any more than it would be incumbent upon you to provide evidence of your innocence if you were falsely accused of a crime. Rather, the burden of proof is on the prosecution.

I agree. And the Prosecution presented a large amount of evidence that the Defense was unable to cast reasonable doubt on. The Defense has not been able to provide a plausible scenario that accounts for the evidence in this case - even ignoring the DNA evidence.

...snip...this should be unconscionable to any right-thinking person; and so on and so on.

Again, you claim that anyone who doesn't agree with you is not "right-thinking". Unbecoming to say the least.

I snipped the rest because those accusations have been thrown about and refuted time and again in this (and/or the old) thread. Remember that this is all your opinion, that you do not have access to the entire case file, and I doubt you have spent much time at PMF reading the testimonies/journals/etc. You might not agree with PMF comments, but that does not mean the rest of the site is not a valid reference tool. Unlike Bruce's site, at least the information is available without commentary or spin or twist (if one ignores the discussion threads).

Anything that the defence seeks to introduce at the appeal ought not be disseminated on the Internet for what should be obvious reasons.

Then, as I have stated before - the accusations against Rudy should not be made either. Unless we're just going to disregard the burden of proof for those accusing Rudy of being a criminal. (interesting that there is a burden of proof to convict Amanda/Raffaele, and yet not one to accuse Rudy of having been a violent criminal in the past. And, yes, I understand you're going to counter by claiming that you're not accusing Rudy of anything. However, you are definitely not discouraging people from making that accusation - you are discouraging people from backing up that accusation. The "right thinking" response would be to encourage both sides to drop the issue - one side because it's not yet proven, the other side because it could (I don't really see how it affects the evidence against Raffaele/Amanda) interfere with the appeal)

And that people whose intent and interests are clearly contrary to those of Ms. Knox and Mr. Sollecito are asking for such information to be publicly disseminated prior to the appeal ought to be sufficient to show that its disclosure on the Internet before the trial would be wrong, without further discussion of the legal issues involved.

I have no interest, nor intent, against Amanda and Raffaele. My interest is in finding the truth. My intent is simply to place the burden of proof on the accusers. In this case, those accusing Rudy of prior violent crimes should back up those accusations with evidence or leave them out of this discussion.

 

[RoseMontague]

The thing that concerns me about Dr. Waterbury's theory is the lack of secondary evidence of this crime spree by Rudy. I can see that if he was a police informant that there might be primary evidence missing (Rudy arrested or charged). However, I would still expect that if it was fairly common knowledge that Rudy was responsible for these things and the victims or others knew about it, there would still be some level of outcry or complaints about the police handling of the situation. I am also surprised that the Italian press has not said anything about this and it is only a UK paper that has brought it up.

It is hard for the press to resist a scoop or a scandal. I expected other news outlets in Italy to jump on this information that was presented by Bob Graham and investigate the matter further. If I were a member of the Italian press I would not let a UK paper (or blog) remain front and center on this story.

I can understand timing the release of such information to go along with the appeal hearing but I have doubts that the Italian press is going to do the same. If the story is true, somebody is going to lose out on a big scoop by sitting on it. I thought Dr. Waterbury's article was extremely well written and his lead in with references to Psycho and The Sixth Sense was a nice touch. However, my feeling is the information he is basing his theory on may not be as solid as he hopes.

 

[LondonJohn]

As have you...that's what happens with these things *shrug*

This "black and white" opinionating, to me, sums up so much of what's wrong.

As I see it, there are some posters on here (let's call them "group 1") who have decided that AK (and often also RS) are innocent. And they use that as a starting off point to believe that each and every piece of evidence which points to their guilt must either be wrong or can be re-interpreted in an innocent way.

There are also some posters ("group 2") who make no firm claims as to AK's or RS's innocence. But these posters think they can identify troubling areas in the evidence which led to their convictions in the first trial. And these posters would like to see these issues properly addressed. Many of the posters in this category believe that at least some of these issues might be able to be successfully challenged on appeal, and that as a result the convictions might be overturned. I would categorise myself in this group (and I believe LashL does too, but I would neither presume to speak for her, nor would I want to be accused of sucking up to the mod.....).

And I'd argue that a similar differentiation can be made on the other side of the argument. In other words, there are some ("group 3") who believe that AK/RS definitely committed the murder, and that therefore any other interpretation of the evidence must by definition be wrong. And there are others ("group 4") who believe in AK/RS's guilt, but who believe that the evidence needs to be tested in order to ensure a safe conviction.

In my view, the only proper dialogue that has gone on has been between groups 1,2 and 4. I'd add that sometimes (again, in my view) group 1's trenchant belief in AK/RS's innocence can lead to a suspension of objectivity, but they can - and do - still raise very valid points about the safety of the convictions. Conversely, I can't see any way of engaging posters who fall into the "group 3" categorisation.........

 

[Fiona]

You're quite wrong. I do not profess to know what the "truth" is at all. But I see serious problems with the convictions that deserve examination, and in my opinion, anyone who is objectively assessing the matter, as opposed to anyone who has taken an entrenched position, should acknowledge that.

Ok.

For starters, in my view, it is inexcusable that the questioning of Ms. Knox and Mr. Sollecito was not taped via audio and/or video. There is no excuse for that, and the lack of audio or video serves only to permit the Perugia police to say whatever they want. These interrogations did not occur in 1930 but in 2007 - and the Perugia police were perfectly well equipped to record them, but they either made a deliberate decision not to do so, or they made a deliberate decision to say that they did not do so. Either way, it's inexcusable and only serves the purposes of the Perugia police, and does not serve the ends of justice.

So witness statements are always video or audio taped in Canada? Fair enough. However this case was conducted in Italy, where there is no need for an "excuse" any more than there is a need for an "excuse" in England or in at least some parts of America. That you believe that a change to the arrangements would be desirable is fine. That you assert that change has already been made in Canada is also fine. You will know. But to say that different requirements are desirable does nothing to support your assertion that there is "no excuse" when the polic were acting in accordance with the law as it stands. The assertion that they either made a deliberate decision not to do so, or they made a deliberate decision to say that they did not do so is just plain wrong. Poliice in the uk do not make such recordings of witness statements nor ar they expected to do so. That is just as it is in Italy. You imply wrong-doing on no foundation whatsoever: that is going a great deal further than the evidence will support and I am sure you are well aware of that

Secondly, it is inexcusable that the Perugia police did not seek or obtain DNA samples from the tenants of the cottage and known visitors to the cottage. I cannot even imagine why any objective person would argue that this should not have been done. There are multiple "unknown" samples found at the cottage, but the Perugia police didn't even try to identify or eliminate them by means that were readily available to them. No telling whether this is incompetence or deliberate malfeasance. Either way, it's wrong and the continuing failure of the Perugia police to ignore the obvious is inexcusable.

I have no idea if this is true or not.

In my view, it is inexcusable that the Perugia police have not made videotapes of their interrogations of Ms. Knox available to the defence, and to the extent that they claim none exist, that can only be as a result of a deliberate decision on their part to ensure that their own actions were not recorded. I've been involved with police interrogations for several years, and I know for a fact that sometimes, unfortunately, police are abusive to suspects and sometimes they deliberately ensure that no recordings are made of their actions in such circumstances. I have no faith in the Perugia police in the circumstances of Ms. Knox's interrogation whatsoever. They had the means and ability to record those interrogations, but deliberately chose not to do so.

This is mere repetition of a smear

How convenient for them to later claim that she said X or Y and that they (the police) didn't do A or B. And don't even get me started about the slander bit, which would never in a thousand years even be considered in Canada as a justiciable matter. But the reality is that there is no legitimate reason for the Perugia police to have made a conscious decision to avoid video during Ms. Knox's questioning. There is no excuse for the Perugia police not to tape the events in the circumstances, particularly since video of the events would provide absolutely clear and unambiguous evidence as to the "voluntariness" of any statements made, which would only help the police/prosecution if the statements were actually voluntary (so who really believes that they would forego that opportunity?)

More repetition of a smear

That's just for starters.

As I said, I used the terminology as used in Canadian law. "Dangerous" in this context means unsafe, based on insufficient admissible and reliable evidence, or quite possibly a wrongful conviction.

If you cannot even fathom or consider the obvious problems with the convictions of Ms. Knox and Mr. Sollecito, then all I can say is that I hope that you are never accused of a crime yourself and that you are never on a jury.

I do not know whether Ms. Knox or Mr. Sollecito are guilty or not, but I certainly see significant problems with the investigation, the interrogations, and the evidence that are easily sufficient to amount to reasonable doubt.

And as much as you may wish to reverse the burden of proof, there was and is no onus upon the accused to provide evidence of their innocence, any more than it would be incumbent upon you to provide evidence of your innocence if you were falsely accused of a crime. Rather, the burden of proof is on the prosecution.

OK.That the burden of proof remains with the prosecution is true in this case because it is conducted in Italy. However at this stage in the UK it would not: this is now an appeal. For an appeal to succeed in the uk the defence have to displace the conviction. The burden of proof is indeed reversed by design.

These convictions are dangerous due to:
Faulty investigation;

Too general to address

failure to properly secure the scene;

Evidence?

failure to adhere to proper investigation techniques;

Too general to address

failure to collect evidence in a timely fashion;

It is agreed that the failure to collect the bra clasp timeously is deeply regrettable. But unless you can establish your second point it does not have any bearing because dna evidence is often discovered long after a crime and it is admissable.

failure to process the crime scence properly;

Too general to address

failure to abide by reasonable standards for processing a crime scene;

This has been asserted but I am not clear what the international standards are nor which aspects you consider not to have been met: nor the significance of those in terms of the evidence.

failure to collect or analyze relevant forensic evidence properly;

Can you be more specific? What precisely was not collected or analysed which should have been collected and analysed? I honestly do not know

failure to utilize appropriate experts to assess the forensic evidence gathered (as insufficient as it was);

That is frankly astonishing. What do you mean?

possible (probable) coercive and unconstitutional interrogations;

I see no evidence of coercive interrogation, much less that it is "probable"

failure to advise the accused of their right to counsel in a timely fashion;

So far as I know she was advised of her right to counsel precisely when she should have been; that is when she became a suspect. Presumably all witnesses are advised of this right in Canada as soon as the police speak to them?

failure to provide the accused with counsel in a timely fashion;

She had a lawyer when she was questioned as a suspect: that is what the law requires and that is what happened

questionable motives by the prosecution throughout;

Mere smear. But even if you were correct that has no bearing on the evidence or the strength of the case.

inappropriate "trial by media" in advance of the trial;

Do I take it that the press in Canada are subject to strong sub judice rules? It is likely if your legal system is like ours: but it is not the situation in America nor in Italy. You may dislike different arrangements, and you may believe them to be prejudicial. But a campaign for system reform in America or Italy should come from within, surely? While the rules are as they are in those countries it seems that you are arguing that any conviction would be unsafe, at least in this respect. Seems a bit arrogant to me

prosecution leaking documents to the media before trial;

A press conference is not "leaking documents". Which documents were leaked by the prosecution?

prosecutors/police celebrating their "solving" of the crime both inappropriately and prematurely in the media even though no charges were actually laid until nearly a year later;

A press conference is not unusual here either: perhaps they do not give press conferences in high profile murder cases in Canada?

locking up suspects for a year before charging them with an offence - permitted or not by the vagaries of Italian law, this should be unconscionable to any right-thinking person; and so on and so on.

What is wrong with this? The style of oversight and the sequence of arrest and charge is different in Italy: but it is not as if they were locked up without any challenge to that: they have more rights to challenge it in Italy than they have in the UK. No idea of the situation in Canada. How long can suspects be remanded there before they appear before a court: What arrangements are there to review the decision to remand before a court appearance? People here facing serious charges are often remanded in custody for lengthy periods.

Whether Ms. Knox and Mr. Sollecito are guilty or not (and again, I take no position on that except to the extent that I say that the evidence presented against them at trial was insufficient to convict) there is so much about the investigation, the interrogations and the trial that is utterly wrong that any right thinking person ought to be questioning it. I do not at all understand how anyone can fail to see any problems with these convictions.

Trouble is you have not convinced me of any of that. Your failure to understand why "right thinking" people may not agree with you sounds fine if it were not for your earlier post. But with an insulting perception like that the restatement in more balanced terms does nothing to persuade me that your opinion is objective

Anything that the defence seeks to introduce at the appeal ought not be disseminated on the Internet for what should be obvious reasons.
As I said above, anything that the defence seeks to introduce on the appeal ought not be disseminated on the Internet for what should be obvious reasons.

I do not disagree with that. However such material should not even be referred to by those who claim to have it. If it is mentioned then it is reasonable for those who see it to presume it can be discussed. Otherwise it is just more smear. It is intended to have an effect and to have that effect without challenge. In terms of what we are discussing that is its current status: it may turn out to be libellous or it may not. We will see when the details are released

And that people whose intent and interests are clearly contrary to those of Ms. Knox and Mr. Sollecito are asking for such information to be publicly disseminated prior to the appeal ought to be sufficient to show that its disclosure on the Internet before the trial would be wrong, without further discussion of the legal issues involved.

And once again with the insults. Hey ho

 

[LondonJohn]

Ok




So witness statements are always video or audio taped in Canada? Fair enough. However this case was conducted in Italy, where there is no need for an "excuse" any more than there is a need for an "excuse" in England or in at least some parts of America. That you believe that a change to the arrangements would be desirable is fine. That you assert that change has already been made in Canada is also fine. You will know. But to say that different requirements are desirable does nothing to support your assertion that there is "no excuse" when the polic were acting in accordance with the law as it stands. The assertion that they either made a deliberate decision not to do so, or they made a deliberate decision to say that they did not do so is just plain wrong. Poliice in the uk do not make such recordings of witness statements nor ar they expected to do so. That is just as it is in Italy. You imply wrong-doing on no foundation whatsoever: that is going a great deal further than the evidence will support and I am sure you are well aware of that

Firstly, did my eyes deceive me or did another Canada-based poster actually say in a post from a earlier today that he agreed the AK interrogations should have been recorded?

Second, it's slightly disingenuous (in my view) to keep falling back on the old standard that the interviews didn't need to be taped since AK was only a witness. As I've pointed out, there's a very rational argument to be made that AK shouldn't have been still officially categorised as a witness after around 1am on the 6th. And, even if you reject that argument, these interviews were taking place in the police station, with recording equipment self-evidently at hand (if not actually even set up in the interview room already). And since the police most definitely knew that they were dealing with a very high-profile murder case, and one with international dimensions, why would they not have pressed the record button? After all, if they knew they were going to behave entirely properly, what would they possibly have to lose by doing so? They certainly would have had a lot to gain - not only in terms of demonstrable transparency, but also in terms of definitively capturing information that might be subsequently used in a criminal case*.

* For those who might be about to argue that no information from a witness statement can be used in trial, you'd be wrong. No self-incriminating information obtained in these circumstances can be used at trial. But witness statement information regarding the participation of others is perfectly permissible in trial. For example, if AK had instead said "Rudy Guede did it, and I was there too", then the part about her being there would not be admissible, but the part about Guede could have been used in his trial. And it's utterly illogical to think that the police wouldn't have preferred to capture such statements on audio/video if they had the easy opportunity to do so.

 

[stilicho]

There are also some posters ("group 2") who make no firm claims as to AK's or RS's innocence. But these posters think they can identify troubling areas in the evidence which led to their convictions in the first trial. And these posters would like to see these issues properly addressed. Many of the posters in this category believe that at least some of these issues might be able to be successfully challenged on appeal, and that as a result the convictions might be overturned. I would categorise myself in this group (and I believe LashL does too, but I would neither presume to speak for her, nor would I want to be accused of sucking up to the mod.....).

Yet this mysterious "group 2" condemns the courts, the investigators, the PMs, the Postal Police, and anyone else in their gunsights. Well...almost. They don't have any problems whatsoever with Rudy's conviction or Patrick's release.

This "group 2" dishonestly represents itself as objective when, in fact, they are wily FOA supporters in all but name.

There is no "group 2". It's a figment of your warped imagination.

 

[stilicho]

Firstly, did my eyes deceive me or did another Canada-based poster actually say in a post from a earlier today that he agreed the AK interrogations should have been recorded?

I absolutely agreed that all witness interviews in serious cases should be recorded. I know they aren't all the time. Not in Canada. Not in the US. I don't know if they always are in the UK or elsewhere.

The studies I've read have demonstrated that recorded interviews are of enormous value to law enforcement.

The statements Amanda made while not being recorded (or where the records were not released) were inadmissible. The main pieces of evidence used against her were the alibi email and the written declaration. No amount of recording would have prevented her from those being used against her.

 

[Chris_Halkides]

can you back it up?

Would you allow your client's paid supporters to say such a thing if you suspected it might endanger their appeal?

Stilicho,

This is not the first time I have heard words such as those quoted above from you. If you do not have any evidence that Dr. Waterbury is paid, you should withdraw this claim immediately.

 

[LondonJohn]

Yet this mysterious "group 2" condemns the courts, the investigators, the PMs, the Postal Police, and anyone else in their gunsights. Well...almost. They don't have any problems whatsoever with Rudy's conviction or Patrick's release.

This "group 2" dishonestly represents itself as objective when, in fact, they are wily FOA supporters in all but name.

There is no "group 2". It's a figment of your warped imagination.

This is egregious misrepresentation of the very worst kind. And yet again you reveal your true colours.

You argue - quite illogically - that it's inconsistent to believe that there may be problems with the safety of AK/RS's convicitons, while simultaneously believing that the conviction of RS is safe and that Lumumba was (ultimately) dealt with correctly.

This argument is either demonstrative of unbelievably low levels of intellect, or is a willful attempt to discredit/deceive. I personally can't figure out which of the two is more likely.

For clarity: the reason why I (personally) believe that RG was correctly and safely convicted is that there was overwhelmingly sufficient forensic evidence to place him at the heart of the murder scene, that he fled to Germany, and that his statements to the police were consistently contradictory and semi-incriminatory.

The reason why I (personally) believe that Lumumba was correctly released (eventually...) was that he had an unimpeachable alibi, and that no evidence linking him to the murder was ever found.

The reason why I (personally) believe AK/RS's convictions might be unsafe have been well-documents by me here before.

I don't believe that holding these three views simultaneously are in any way incompatible or illogical. It's entirely possible to believe that the police/prosecutors acted properly in some instances, and improperly in other instances.

Lastly, how dare you tell me I'm not objective. Or that I'm dishonestly representing myself. Or that I have a "warped imagination". You must have a very strange and sad world view to have made these accusations.

I'm completely done with any form of engagement with you now. I hoped that things might have changed, for one reason or another. But it seems not.

 

[LondonJohn]

I absolutely agreed that all witness interviews in serious cases should be recorded. I know they aren't all the time. Not in Canada. Not in the US. I don't know if they always are in the UK or elsewhere.

The studies I've read have demonstrated that recorded interviews are of enormous value to law enforcement.

The statements Amanda made while not being recorded (or where the records were not released) were inadmissible. The main pieces of evidence used against her were the alibi email and the written declaration. No amount of recording would have prevented her from those being used against her.

Just as a last correction, It's totally incorrect to say that AK's witness statements were inadmissible. It just so happens that they turned out to be unusable in trial because a) she incriminated herself (which is inadmissible) and that she incriminated Lumumba, who was subsequently exonerated.

AK's witness statements could have been used in any trial against Lumumba - if he'd subsequently been charged with the crime. And anything AK said throughout these entire interrogations could have been used against anyone else she might have implicated. The only things that would have been (and were) inadmissible were places where she incriminated herself.