Continuation - Discussion of the Amanda Knox case

[LondonJohn]

And all of us are not Amanda Knox. Who can say what was going on in her mind?

I could say that she was tired, she wanted to go home, smoke a joint, take a shower, have sex, take another shower, smoke another joint, eat some munchies, and go to bed only to come back to the police station the next morning and explain that she was confused and tired and just wanted to tell them what they wanted to hear the night before so she could just go home, for goodness sake.

Beats me.

I agree 100%. And it's just this sort of open-minded analysis that can actually sometimes lead to more enlightened thinking...

I believe that to a certain extent the prosecutors (and, needless to say, some of the posters on here) started by deciding that Amanda Knox and Raffalele Sollecito were involved in the murder. They then used that presumption to explain all of AK/RS's behaviour (and other evidence) in that context.

Take just a single example: the blood in the bathroom. I would argue that if one was coming at that issue from a completely neutral perspective, one might pursue the following train of thought: if a) AK was involved in the murder, b) she found herself demonstrably alone in the house on the morning of the 2nd November, and c) she noticed blood spots and stains in the bathroom (one of which might have been the bloody footprint of her boyfriend), then why didn't she clean up all the blood and either wash or dispose of the bathmat? After all, it could only be either neutral (unlikely) or incriminating (more likely) for AK and/or RS. And she'd have had plenty of time to carry out this fairly quick task. Instead, she left this blood in situ, and pointed it out to the police upon their arrival.

If, however, one starts from a position of presuming AK/RS's guilt, then one must make the "blood in the bathroom" issue compatible with this presumption. And thus is born the idea that AK/RS needed to leave some blood in the bathroom, in order to provide them with an "excuse" for getting worried. Never mind that there were plenty of other ways in which they could have provided this excuse (even if they'd wanted to, which is questionable in itself) without leaving potentially incriminating evidence in situ (e.g. trashing the common areas of the house). No, if we're presuming that they committed the murder, then let's decide that even though they apparently had hours and hours in which to decide on a strategy for escaping justice, the best they could come up with was to leave some potentially incriminating evidence in the bathroom - and just so that they could use this to explain why AK had become concerned. Genius.

This is just one example (but maybe one of the more amazing ones) where I believe evidence has been interpreted to fit a presumption of guilt. I believe that if certain areas of evidence in this case (often key areas) are examined with no such presumption, then other interpretations can be attached which are either neutral to AK/RS's involvement, or which - in some instances - actually point away from their involvement.

 

[LondonJohn]

I'm afraid you're in for a rude awakening if you expect the police, anywhere, to be so nice as to make sure every word of anyone they ever talk to is recorded for posterity in some way. They are the police! they are trained to be manipulative and are legally allowed to lie. They have their ways of questioning designed to elicit the truth which may not always seem so above board to a lay person. They would also probably assume most people would clam up and request a lawyer as soon as they haul out a recording device. I would.
.

I think something's been lost in all this discussion of recording witness statements, and it's this: who is a witness, and who is a suspect? For example, I have no problem at all that the police didn't record any of their witness interviews with Filomena or Laura, even before they knew for sure that these girls had alibis. After all, these two girls were purely witnesses - the police were only looking for information from the girls which might assist them with the investigation. As far as I know, neither Filomena nor Laura ever came under any sort of suspicion.

In contrast, my main problem with the way Amanda Knox (and to a lesser degree, Sollecito) was handled is that it's fairly clear that by the 5th November the police most certainly didn't consider them to be merely witnesses. Their phones were being tapped, and they were being investigated in depth. And by around 12.30am on the night of the 5th/6th, the police knew that RS's alibi support for AK had waivered. And they also knew (or thought they knew) that AK had lied about a text message agreement to meet up with Lumumba on the murder night.

To me, it's very clear that AK (in particular) was regarded by the police as far more than just a witness by the time she sat in the interrogation room at around 12.30am. And I would support that belief by reasserting that I think it's unfeasible that AK more-or-less spontaneously broke down and "confessed/accused" by 1.45am. I think that she did that in reply to harsh police questioning/coercion/suggestion.

And of course the police have to deny that such questioning ever took place (as do the "guilters"), since to admit it would essentially be admitting that they regarded AK as a suspect prior to the "confession/accusation". So the police have to persist with the myth (in my mind) that they were having a perfectly anodyne chat with AK about the text message etc, when all of a sudden, she burst into tears and started naming names (including her own).

 

[Fiona]

Well since nobody here has said that so far as I know, it is a little odd to suggest that people have to say that

 

[BobTheDonkey]

I think something's been lost in all this discussion of recording witness statements, and it's this: who is a witness, and who is a suspect? For example, I have no problem at all that the police didn't record any of their witness interviews with Filomena or Laura, even before they knew for sure that these girls had alibis. After all, these two girls were purely witnesses - the police were only looking for information from the girls which might assist them with the investigation. As far as I know, neither Filomena nor Laura ever came under any sort of suspicion.

In contrast, my main problem with the way Amanda Knox (and to a lesser degree, Sollecito) was handled is that it's fairly clear that by the 5th November the police most certainly didn't consider them to be merely witnesses. Their phones were being tapped, and they were being investigated in depth. And by around 12.30am on the night of the 5th/6th, the police knew that RS's alibi support for AK had waivered. And they also knew (or thought they knew) that AK had lied about a text message agreement to meet up with Lumumba on the murder night.

To me, it's very clear that AK (in particular) was regarded by the police as far more than just a witness by the time she sat in the interrogation room at around 12.30am. And I would support that belief by reasserting that I think it's unfeasible that AK more-or-less spontaneously broke down and "confessed/accused" by 1.45am. I think that she did that in reply to harsh police questioning/coercion/suggestion.

And of course the police have to deny that such questioning ever took place (as do the "guilters"), since to admit it would essentially be admitting that they regarded AK as a suspect prior to the "confession/accusation". So the police have to persist with the myth (in my mind) that they were having a perfectly anodyne chat with AK about the text message etc, when all of a sudden, she burst into tears and started naming names (including her own).

Apparently you still haven't paid attention to the fact that a Suspect in Italy is a formal designation and requires sufficient evidence to support it. What Amanda and Raffaele were on the night of the 5th would be more accurately termed "Persons of interest."

Were these two persons of interest? Definitely. Is that enough to arrest them? No. I don't know that that's even enough here in the U.S. I believe the Police here would have followed a similar tact - i.e. continue questioning, keep asking for them to repeat their stories because eventually, if the stories are lies, discrepancies will surface (as they did) - this, to me, seems like Investigations 101. Think...Perry Mason...asking again and again regarding trivial seeming points looking for those discrepancies.

 

[Charlie Wilkes]

These are questions that have popped up every time the "coerced confessions occur often during Police investigations" and they have yet to be answered with evidence. While I acknowledge that a coerced confession can happen, that it is referred to as happening "often" is, at this point, nothing more than spin. And we have yet to see any kind of supporting information regarding how often coerced accusations come from innocent suspects.

I can give you lots of examples, including some where innocent people accused someone else. Christopher Ochoa did that, and the person he accused suffered permanent brain damage after he was attacked in prison. Ochoa is no dummy - he's a lawyer now - but he was young and naive and easy to manipulate. Here's an article about the case:

http://www.dallasnews.com/sharedcon...N-ochoa_24met.ART.State.Edition2.4657628.html

According to the Innocence Project website:

In about 25% of DNA exoneration cases, innocent defendants made incriminating statements, delivered outright confessions or pled guilty.

http://www.innocenceproject.org/understand/False-Confessions.php

 

[Fulcanelli]

And if not, WHY, in this day and age?
Why rely on someone's memory of what was said, when you can easily record it?

I thought that's what 'writing' was for.

 

[Fulcanelli]

The recording was not done because of incompetence or intentionally not recorded.

Due to the quantity of professionals present for that interrogation/questioning, including even a Rome based Edgardo Giobbi, it would appear the group, as a whole, could not be incompetent.

This leaves the decision to not record as intentional.

Then it appears there is a need to know why this decision, to not record, was intentionally made.

Because they were WITNESSES.

 

[Bruce Fischer]

In Stilicho's defense, there is more to it than that. There are several ways to approach a debate. My position is to treat a poster as if he is arguing honestly. If I believe they are wrong, it is because they are not correct, not because they are being deceitful.

Rose,

I think your position is an excellent one. I believe that most people on this board honestly believe what they are arguing for. With that said, I believe that certain people from PMF have become obsessed with their beliefs and they will do or say anything to win their debate online.

A perfect example of this is Harry Rag. He posts as "The Machine" on PMF. He cut and pastes misinformation and outright lies all over the internet. He does this while promoting PMF. Behavior like this prevents me from taking your position when I debate members from that group. They currently promote deceitful behavior.

When you ask Fulcanelli why he lets Harry Rag participate in the PMF discussion, he denies that he even knows him.

 

[RWVBWL]

I'm afraid you're in for a rude awakening if you expect the police, anywhere, to be so nice as to make sure every word of anyone they ever talk to is recorded for posterity in some way. They are the police! they are trained to be manipulative and are legally allowed to lie. They have their ways of questioning designed to elicit the truth which may not always seem so above board to a lay person. They would also probably assume most people would clam up and request a lawyer as soon as they haul out a recording device. I would.QUOTE]


Greetings Danceme,
Thanks for the response.
Actually, I'm definately not in for a rude awakening,
since I already know that the police are not in the habit of being nice to suspects and recording their conversations with any particular suspect or witness.

However, we are in more modern times,
with technology moving onward pretty fast.
Most police agencies, I believe, have moved forward into the computer age, haven't they?

So it makes sense that the police should also engage in tape or digital audio+video recordings:
to better do their own job,
to safeguard the public from unscrupulous police officers and unfounded charges,
and to help keep the police forces themselves from being unjustly charged with police brutality.

If the police had a video camera in the interogation rooms on the night of Nov. 5/6th 2007, there would be no need to wonder any of this, for it would be easy to review and then prove any allegations of police misconduct.
And so who are you gonna believe, Amanda Knox or the hard working police officers who interrogated her that night?

I can just imagine if the Rodney King video beating tape did not exist here in Southern California, the police would have most likely been never charged with beating him, for it was their word against his.
And who are you gonna believe, Rodney King or the good, hardworking police officers who responded?
Without that video tape, the 1992 Los Angeles riots probably never would have happened,
which I still remember...

Someday I hope that more police agencies move forward into the modern age and more police agencies give their employees audio and/or video recording devices, it would make life simpler all around.
Video does seem to be happening a bit more often, from what I have seen, for there seems to be more police cruisers with video recording cameras installed in them, at least from what I see on the news clips on the web...

Anyways, Danceme, just another random thought that I posted of...
Have a nice rest of your Sunday,
RWVBWL

 

[Fiona]

Rose,

I think your position is an excellent one. I believe that most people on this board honestly believe what they are arguing for. With that said, I believe that certain people from PMF have become obsessed with their beliefs and they will do or say anything to win their debate online.

A perfect example of this is Harry Rag. He posts as "The Machine" on PMF. He cut and pastes misinformation and outright lies all over the internet. He does this while promoting PMF. Behavior like this prevents me from taking your position when I debate members from that group. They currently promote deceitful behavior.

When you ask Fulcanelli why he lets Harry Rag participate in the PMF discussion, he denies that he even knows him.

Does he post here?

 

[RoseMontague]

Rose,

I think your position is an excellent one. I believe that most people on this board honestly believe what they are arguing for. With that said, I believe that certain people from PMF have become obsessed with their beliefs and they will do or say anything to win their debate online.

A perfect example of this is Harry Rag. He posts as "The Machine" on PMF. He cut and pastes misinformation and outright lies all over the internet. He does this while promoting PMF. Behavior like this prevents me from taking your position when I debate members from that group. They currently promote deceitful behavior.

When you ask Fulcanelli why he lets Harry Rag participate in the PMF discussion, he denies that he even knows him.

I think the problem from their standpoint is that it is the innocent side that is being deceitful. One or both of you is obviously not correct. If you both take that position up front, no meaningful debate can happen, it will just result in an exchange of insults. According to me, I would like to see both extremes argue their position from a standpoint of civility. I have recently started posting at PMF and have not had much of a problem. Skeptical Bystander seemed a little touchy but I told him a bedtime story and he seemed to calm down. Other than that, my opinion is that there are some smart people on both sides of this case. I am going to take it on faith that people are trying to be honest. A little spin is to be expected and I have no issues with satire and even some minor sarcasm on occasion.

 

[Bruce Fischer]

Does he post here?

It doesn't matter if he posts here. If you were following the discussion, it was in regard to the online debate in general.

 

[Fulcanelli]

I think the problem from their standpoint is that it is the innocent side that is being deceitful. One or both of you is obviously not correct. If you both take that position up front, no meaningful debate can happen, it will just result in an exchange of insults. According to me, I would like to see both extremes argue their position from a standpoint of civility. I have recently started posting at PMF and have not had much of a problem. Skeptical Bystander seemed a little touchy but I told him a bedtime story and he seemed to calm down. Other than that, my opinion is that there are some smart people on both sides of this case. I am going to take it on faith that people are trying to be honest. A little spin is to be expected and I have no issues with satire and even some minor sarcasm on occasion.

'He' is a 'she'

 

[Bruce Fischer]

I think the problem from their standpoint is that the innocent side that is being deceiving. One or both of you is obviously not correct. If you both take that position up front, no meaningful debate can happen, it will just result in an exchange of insults. According to me, I would like to see both extremes argue their position from a standpoint of civility. I have recently started posting at PMF and have not had much of a problem. Skeptical Bystander seemed a little touchy but I told him a bedtime story and he seemed to calm down. Other than that, my opinion is that there are some smart people on both sides of this case. I am going to take it on faith that people are trying to be honest. A little spin is to be accepted and I have no issues with satire and even some minor sarcasm on occasion.

Skeptical Bystander is actually Peggy. She will not tolerate any opposition on PMF. I have no problem with that. We certainly have discussion boards that are not open to all opinions. Michael and Peggy have every right to run their own site.

There is nothing anyone could tell me online that would convince me that Amanda and Raffaele are guilty. I would need to see new evidence introduced. Everything I have shows me that they have been wrongfully convicted.

Fighting to keep someone in prison day after day is a very strange position to take. They claim that they are fighting for Meredith but when you listen to them long enough, you find out that they have developed hatred for Amanda and her family. Anything they can find that looks negative for Amanda or any of her family members is like cocaine to them. They are addicted and cannot get enough.

I have read the appeals for both Amanda and Raffaele. They both make very strong arguments. This will be corrected eventually. It might take the supreme court to get it corrected but it will be corrected.

 

[RoseMontague]

'He' is a 'she'

Lord have mercy on my soul. Think I can manage to make it another day or two after that?

Thanks for the heads up.

 

[Mary_H]

From Mary_H: Once again, you've lost me. What does chauvinism have to do with it?

If you do not know (and I am inclined to believe that you don't) then I cannot help you.

Right. As I suspected, you didn't know what you were talking about.

 

[Fiona]

Do you know what chauvinism means MaryH?

 

[LondonJohn]

Just a thought to throw out there:

First, let's for one moment assume that the break-in (rock through the window, ruffled clothing etc) was staged - i.e. that nobody actually entered the house via that route.

Now, it seems to be commonly agreed that if Rudy Guede were the lone assailant (or even if he were assisted by other unknown accomplices), he would have had no reason to stage a break-in. The reasoning for this is that only someone who lived in the house and therefore had a key to the front door (i.e. Amanda Knox) would have any motivation to fake a break-in - in order to misdirect police towards a "stranger" intruder.

However, I think it is possible to show why Guede might have had a motivation to stage a break-in - even if only he were involved in the crime.

My reasoning would be this: suppose that Guede turned up alone at the front door to the cottage on the night of the 1st November (say, at around 9.30pm). Maybe he was looking to score or smoke some dope (maybe he tried the boys' house downstairs first...). Anyhow, it's entirely possible that he knocked on the girls' front door, and it's equally possible that Meredith let him into the flat. After all, Meredith had met Guede before (in the boys' flat, I believe, and also possibly on Halloween), so he wouldn't be a total random stranger to her.

Maybe Guede quickly realised he was alone in the house with Meredith. He may even have asked where all the others (boys and girls) were, and Meredith might have innocently told him that they were all away. Maybe Guede then saw his opportunity to have his way with Meredith. Maybe she resisted, and so on........

So, having killed Meredith, Guede might have quickly realised that if he simply left the house and closed the front door behind him, this would narrow down the field of potential suspects dramatically. In effect, it would narrow down the field to either those who had their own keys, or those who Meredith would have felt comfortable letting into the house. And in that second category, there were only probably a couple of dozen or so (maximum) people in Perugia. (and Rudy already knew that all the boys from the flat below were away).

In other words, had the body been discovered with no signs of forced entry, the police would have been able to narrow the search to people with access to keys, and people known to Meredith. Guede could have quickly realised that many people knew that Meredith knew who he was (even if only in passing), and that she almost certainly knew that he hung out with the boys in the flat below.

So, with all that in mind, I think it's entirely logical that Guede might have elected to stage the break-in himself. After all, he may well have performed similar break-ins before, and would have realised that a break-in implies no link to the property being broken into. In addition, if he thought the police would buy the "break-in" scenario (one can only guess that he didn't really look out of the window before he broke it...), he might even have thought it could come to his aid if he'd been subsequently solely accused of Meredith's murder/assault (i.e. "Why would I break into the house? I knew Meredith, and she'd have let me in").

As it turned out, of course, the break-in was quickly deemed improbable - if not impossible. But I believe that even Guede alone would have had a plausible motivation for staging such a break-in. It doesn't automatically point towards AK/RS's guilt, in my view.

 

[BobTheDonkey]

I'm afraid you're in for a rude awakening if you expect the police, anywhere, to be so nice as to make sure every word of anyone they ever talk to is recorded for posterity in some way. They are the police! they are trained to be manipulative and are legally allowed to lie. They have their ways of questioning designed to elicit the truth which may not always seem so above board to a lay person. They would also probably assume most people would clam up and request a lawyer as soon as they haul out a recording device. I would.QUOTE]


Greetings Danceme,
Thanks for the response.
Actually, I'm definately not in for a rude awakening,
since I already know that the police are not in the habit of being nice to suspects and recording their conversations with any particular suspect or witness.

However, we are in more modern times,
with technology moving onward pretty fast.
Most police agencies, I believe, have moved forward into the computer age, haven't they?

So it makes sense that the police should also engage in tape or digital audio+video recordings:
to better do their own job,
to safeguard the public from unscrupulous police officers and unfounded charges,
and to help keep the police forces themselves from being unjustly charged with police brutality.

If the police had a video camera in the interogation rooms on the night of Nov. 5/6th 2007, there would be no need to wonder any of this, for it would be easy to review and then prove any allegations of police misconduct.
And so who are you gonna believe, Amanda Knox or the hard working police officers who interrogated her that night?

I can just imagine if the Rodney King video beating tape did not exist here in Southern California, the police would have most likely been never charged with beating him, for it was their word against his.
And who are you gonna believe, Rodney King or the good, hardworking police officers who responded?
Without that video tape, the 1992 Los Angeles riots probably never would have happened,
which I still remember...

Someday I hope that more police agencies move forward into the modern age and more police agencies give their employees audio and/or video recording devices, it would make life simpler all around.
Video does seem to be happening a bit more often, from what I have seen, for there seems to be more police cruisers with video recording cameras installed in them, at least from what I see on the news clips on the web...

Anyways, Danceme, just another random thought that I posted of...
Have a nice rest of your Sunday,
RWVBWL

It's interesting that you bring up the Rodney King video. That's actually a horrible video to use to defend your position that it keeps everyone honest. The truth of the matter (if you watch the full video, not the clip the news stations aired) is that Rodney King was under the influence of drugs (PCP if I'm not mistaken) and had been tasered multiple times. He continued to resist arrest/attempt to attack the Police Officers. At that point, the PO's did what needed to be done to subdue a violent/physically dangerous suspect.

This, by the way, is why the Officers were originally acquitted of all charges. It wasn't until there was a huge outcry from the public, who had only seen the edited version of the video, that the Officers were found guilty of any wrongdoing.

Long story short, videos can be edited by both sides - the same as written statements/notes and audio recordings.

So, I guess I owe you a "thank you" for evidencing just how fallible video recordings of the interviews could have been.

 

[RWVBWL]

I thought that's what 'writing' was for.

Come on Fulcanelli!
What's better?
A police officer's written memory
or a recording to re-hear or re-watch afterwards to go along with that officer's memory?

As I just mentioned a moment ago, Rodney King in Southern California sure was LUCKY that someone recorded his beating by police, even though, from what I recall, he was running away from them at the time.
Most people, including myself, would have thought that he was lying about police brutality without seeing that video tape, since most of us, the public, tend to believe that ALL police officers are on the right side.
But it seems the "us verses them" mentality does spoil a few cops sometimes.

Hence, audio+video, would definately help, don'tcha think, Fulcanelli?
Hmmm?
RWVBWL