Continuation - Discussion of the Amanda Knox case

[BobTheDonkey]

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 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.

Except that doesn't match the bloody footprints...nor the lack of his DNA in Filomena's bedroom. While absence of his DNA is not evidence that he wasn't there...there is simply no evidence he was ever in Filomena's room after Meredith was murdered (those damned pesky bloody footprints leading right out the front door strike again )

 

[RoseMontague]

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.

Bruce, I believe you are sincere, but you will not attempt to discuss the evidence with them without accusing them of dishonesty. And I could say the same about Fulcanelli. Both sides believe the evidence is clear yet there are many people here that are still striving for answers.

When I reviewed Nadeau's book I talked about how she indicated that there was a system of barter or exchange between the journalists covering the case. One reporter would trade one document or story for another usually with the understanding that the source was not to be revealed. This has led to a lot of unverified whackedness in trying to get at the truth. This seems to be a pattern that is still going on today. This is a major part of the continuing problem in getting at the truth. Some of this information is still being held in reserve for purposes of future favors (in my opinion).

Shameful, that.

 

[BobTheDonkey]

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

Watch the full video. I just explained why it wasn't police brutality.

 

[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.

Hi BobtheDonkey!
Actually, I feel the Rodney King video is a great example, it showed Mr. King trying to evade the police and then fighting back, as you said, under the influence of PCP.
The courts viewed the video, and if I recall correctly, it contradicted at least 1 of the officer's story. It did indeed show what happend, which is what it should, to help convict someone guilty or free someone innocent. Mr. King was then convicted, and I am sure the video tape helped.
RWVBWL

 

[Bruce Fischer]

Bruce, I believe you are sincere, but you will not attempt to discuss the evidence with them without accusing them of dishonesty. And I could say the same about Fulcanelli. Both sides believe the evidence is clear yet there are many people here that are still striving for answers.

When I reviewed Nadeau's book I talked about how she indicated that there was a system of barter or exchange between the journalists covering the case. One reporter would trade one document or story for another usually with the understanding that the source was not to be revealed. This has led to a lot of unverified whackedness in trying to get at the truth. This seems to be a pattern that is still going on today. A big part of the continuing problem in getting at the truth. some of this information is still being held in reserve for purposes of future favors in my opinion.

Shameful, that.

The media is very shameful. Information is currently being withheld about Guede because more profit will come from it at a future date. Some won't admit it but we all know that Amanda was destroyed in the media. We need to look past the media and look at the actual evidence that was presented in court.

PMF continues to state that a bloody shoe print was attributed to Amanda in Meredith's room. This is completely false. They know it is but they keep stating it. They keep stating that the stains found with luminol were made in blood. There is no proof of this. We now know that they were tested and they were all negative for blood.

These lies continue because without those footprints and shoe prints, they have nothing on Amanda.

They have her DNA on a knife handle in a kitchen that she prepared meals in. That's it. Nothing else.

I know the lies will continue. There is nothing that can be done to stop them. This is the internet after all.

 

[LondonJohn]

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.

While i agree with pretty much all that you've said here, I wanted to expand on the highlighted part. What you wrote there implies a form of "zero-sum" game - i.e. if one "side" is right, then the other "side" is wrong (unless both "sides" are wrong, of course). While I agree that this can often be the case at the more extreme ends of the argument (e.g. "AK did it" vs "AK didn't do it"), I believe that there are many areas where it's a lot more subtle than that.

For example, much of what I suggest is based on questioning of facts and evidence. I think that many areas of the evidence weren't adequately tested in the first trial, and I try to throw up (albeit from a distant, amateur, semi-informed perspective) areas where I think this might have happened. I am very happy to be debated on any of these points - and I'm also happy to be put right on them if I've either misinterpreted situations or have just been plain stupid*.

What irks me is an argument from the perspective of something like this: "Well she/they were convicted of it, and the evidence certainly convinced Massei (the demigod)". For good measure, some posters also add in something flippant like "They will have 26 years in prison to think up excuses like these". In addition to those more blatant examples, I often sense that some people feel that because a certain interpretation "fits" the prosecution narrative (the blood in the bathroom being a good example here), then it must be the most likely interpretation.

I think it's entirely valid to raise questions about the evidence from a position of having a reasonable knowledge a) of this case and b) of jurisprudence in general. I might be wrong, and I'm not even suggesting that the questions I'm raising will be answered "in favour" of AK/RS. I'm just raising things that I feel warrant further attention.

*But I'm not - and never have been - dishonest in either my personal representation or my analysis of any issue.

 

[Bruce Fischer]

Watch the full video. I just explained why it wasn't police brutality.

Mr Donkey, you don't think that the Rodney King case was police brutality?

I am not defending King in anyway. He deserved to be charged also.

Adrenaline got the best of the officers at the end of the fight. I can't say I blame them but they did cross the line.

Many members of law enforcement agree that they went too far.

The argument is not about that case but about the video. Video clearly helped to define what happened in that situation. Why do you think that police all across the country are having cameras installed in their cars?

 

[LondonJohn]

Except that doesn't match the bloody footprints...nor the lack of his DNA in Filomena's bedroom. While absence of his DNA is not evidence that he wasn't there...there is simply no evidence he was ever in Filomena's room after Meredith was murdered (those damned pesky bloody footprints leading right out the front door strike again )

Why couldn't he have committed the murder, gone to the bathroom to clean up, staged the break-in, then returned to Meredith's room to grab her purse and phones, stepped in the blood, then gone straight from Meredith's room to the front door?

 

[Bruce Fischer]

Why couldn't he have committed the murder, gone to the bathroom to clean up, staged the break-in, then returned to Meredith's room to grab her purse and phones, stepped in the blood, then gone straight from Meredith's room to the front door?

Bob uses the DNA argument for Guede in Filomena's room but disagrees with the argument pertaining to Amanda in Meredith's bedroom.

The difference being that Rudy did not have a violent struggle with anyone in Filomena's room.

 

[LondonJohn]

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.

Not quite accurate, I'm afraid.

The whole point here was one of "proportionate response". Nobody ever argued that King was not incredibly aggressive, nor that he wasn't actively resisting arrest. But that does not give the police a "carte blanche" to lay into him with repeated baton blows long after he could have been safely cuffed and shackled. The acts of the police were vindictive and disproportionate - and this is the reason why two of them were found guilty of federal violations against King's civil rights. The verdict explicitly found that excessive and unnecessary physical force had been used on King.

And regardless of this, the video served to show what happened. It put everything into some sort of context, and provided irrefutable proof of what went on (at least at the culmination of the chase). It's impossible to argue that justice - on all fronts - wasn't enhanced by the existence of this video tape.

PS this reminds me of comedian Bill Hicks' excellent riff satirising the policemen on the stand in the original trial. He imagines one of them saying in his testimony: "Videos can show anything you want them to show. Heck, if you play the tape backwards, it shows us helping King up from the ground, and sending him on his way...."

 

[Mary_H]

Do you know what chauvinism means MaryH?

Yes. That's why I am trying to figure out how it follows from our dialogue:

Fiona: This interview was conducted at a time of RS's choosing. You can go on reiterating that fact that the interviews started at a late hour: I have not missed the unspoken echo. But that echo has no relevance here and that is presumably why you have not made it explicit. There is nothing sinister at all about the time of this interview

Mary: I'm not sure I am catching your meaning about the unspoken echo and not making things explicit. I thought I had been pretty explicit about condemning the police for purposely performing their interrogations at night in general (see one of my very first posts, about what Alexander Solzhenitsyn wrote about the Gulag Archipelago), and for not waiting until the next day in this particular case.

Fiona: You are right and I am wrong. You have indeed made it explicit. For some reason I had forgotten your very early contribution. I withdraw unreservedly. And I take my hat off to you for admitting that very embarrassing point of view. It is very honest of you

Mary: That's okay, you don't need to be embarrassed on account of my point of view.

Fiona: I am not embarrassed. Your chauvinism is not my problem

 

[LondonJohn]

Mr Donkey, you don't think that the Rodney King case was police brutality?

I am not defending King in anyway. He deserved to be charged also.

Adrenaline got the best of the officers at the end of the fight. I can't say I blame them but they did cross the line.

Many members of law enforcement agree that they went too far.

The argument is not about that case but about the video. Video clearly helped to define what happened in that situation. Why do you think that police all across the country are having cameras installed in their cars?

So that programs like "America's Dumbest Police Chases" can be made?

(I'm sure you realise I'm joking. I agree with all you've said here)

 

[Bruce Fischer]

So that programs like "America's Dumbest Police Chases" can be made?

(I'm sure you realise I'm joking. I agree with all you've said here)

COPS was a great show for a while! Senseless entertainment is not always bad.

 

[Fiona]

Well Mary it seems to me that the Italian police interviewed RS and AK at a time of RS and AK's choosing. So the fact that was late at night is not evidence of anything at all, much less of what happens in totalitarian states. You have also been accusing them of suspect behaviour for conducting their interview in the normal way. You have not stated explicitly that this is suspect because it is not how it is done in America, that is true. In fact I am still waiting to hear how it is done in America in those areas where electronic recordings are not made. But your consistent denigration of Italy (and by extension my own country) leads me to believe that you think that America is in some way superior. That is what is called partisan on behalf of the group to which you belong and it is coupled with malice against the Italians: not just the Italian police but Italy in general. Can one get a better example of chauvinism than that? I think you would travel a long way

 

[LondonJohn]

COPS was a great show for a while! Senseless entertainment is not always bad.

"Bad boys, bad boys, watcha gonna do...."

We got that for a while in the UK too - I think it's probably still shown on one of the minor satellite channels.

Actually, I think these programs serve at least a modicum of educational purpose - as well as being armchair entertainment of course. Not only do they show the public how nasty and dangerous a police officer's job can be at times, but I think they also serve to restore faith in good policing. After all, none of the officers with COPS cameras in their cars are going to behave anything other than properly and proportionately, even in the face of danger.

 

[Mary_H]

Well Mary it seems to me that the Italian police interviewed RS and AK at a time of RS and AK's choosing. So the fact that was late at night is not evidence of anything at all, much less of what happens in totalitarian states. You have also been accusing them of suspect behaviour for conducting their interview in the normal way. You have not stated explicitly that this is suspect because it is not how it is done in America, that is true. In fact I am still waiting to hear how it is done in America in those areas where electronic recordings are not made. But your consistent denigration of Italy (and by extension my own country) leads me to believe that you think that America is in some way superior. That is what is called partisan on behalf of the group to which you belong and it is coupled with malice against the Italians: not just the Italian police but Italy in general. Can one get a better example of chauvinism than that? I think you would travel a long way

That's what I thought you were driving at; I just wanted to see if I understood you correctly. Thank you for admitting you were mistaken: "You have not stated explicitly that this is suspect because it is not how it is done in America, that is true."

And while you're at it, you can take back these direct personal insults, as well:

"I know you are xenophobic and arrogant but that does not an argument make. Ignoring the facts that we do have is not helping either."

As for your argument about CCTV cameras in Italian police stations -- " It is not reasonable to expect them to be in police stations however. We know that they are not there in police stations in a country which has the greatest amount of CCTV surveillance in the world ( the uk)" -- keep in mind UK police don't carry guns, either. Carabinieri most certainly do. There is no comparison.

 

[Fiona]

How are witness statements recorded in those parts of america where they are not electronically recorded, MaryH ?

 

[BobTheDonkey]

Mr Donkey, you don't think that the Rodney King case was police brutality?

I am not defending King in anyway. He deserved to be charged also.

Adrenaline got the best of the officers at the end of the fight. I can't say I blame them but they did cross the line.

Many members of law enforcement agree that they went too far.

The argument is not about that case but about the video. Video clearly helped to define what happened in that situation. Why do you think that police all across the country are having cameras installed in their cars?

Really? Because the video I've seen showed King still trying to get up while the Police were using their batons.

Maybe we've seen different videos.

Regardless, the point was that the riots began precisely because the full length of the video was not played by the news outlets. In other words, even videos are not tamper-proof as some would like to believe.

In hindsight, we can sit here with the luxury of stating that the Police erred in not taping this interview. But the reality is that, at the time, there was no reason to expect it to be any different than the prior interviews.

What, the Police were supposed to stop the proceedings as soon as Raffaele dropped the alibi so they could set up a video camera? Again, this was an unexpected accusation/confession. There is no reason to suspect malfeasance simply because a witness statement was being made without a video/audio recording.

 

[Fiona]

In hindsight, we can sit here with the luxury of stating that the Police erred in not taping this interview. But the reality is that, at the time, there was no reason to expect it to be any different than the prior interviews.

What, the Police were supposed to stop the proceedings as soon as Raffaele dropped the alibi so they could set up a video camera? Again, this was an unexpected accusation/confession. There is no reason to suspect malfeasance simply because a witness statement was being made without a video/audio recording.

The fact is that it was not an error and the interview was not different than any witness interview. It really is as simple as that.

 

[Mr.D]

They are the police! they are trained to be manipulative and are legally allowed to lie.

Bolding mine.

I cannot find the link now, but I believe it has been shown that this is not true in the Italian system.