Continuation - Discussion of the Amanda Knox case

[RoseMontague]

I know some people might find it difficult to understand that a person's beliefs can change over the period of a short but steep learning curve. I also know that many people on here have been devoted followers of this case since 2009 or earlier, so it's more natural that their beliefs wouldn't have changed much between April/May 2010 and June 2010. But I'm on a completely different timescale of discovering information about this case. I'm also guessing that if my beliefs had changed in the other direction (i.e. from doubts over the convictions to certainty), certain people might have found that easier to believe - or even welcomed such a conversion with open arms....

By the time my response reaches you it may be a moot point. I see no problem with approaching this case with an open mind nor do I see what the big deal is over changing your mind from your initial take on the case. Many of us have had that happen in either direction. What is important now is how you feel about the case now and not ten or 55 minutes from now when the great and terrible Measartha Hóf pulls the lever behind the curtain.

Of course, then you will have to reply back in a similar fashion just hoping that my position favorable to your somewhat just cause (I feel a change in the wind on this) has not atrophied and I have not suffered one of those delayed response epiphanies in the direction opposite the one you have proclaimed.

Sometimes waiting is still for the birds.

 

[LondonJohn]

A point about the mixture of Meredith's blood with Guede's. It's misleading - in my view - to say things like "we know that Meredith's blood on Rudy's hands was mixed with his DNA". It's even more misleading - and illogical - to then say that any places where Meredith's blood DNA appeared on its own shows by definition that this blood wasn't deposited by Guede.

After all, what do we actually know? We know that, in places, Meredith's blood deposits were mixed with Guede's DNA (e.g. the handbag (purse)). That much is true. But that absolutely does not mean that the only blood that Guede carried around the house had to have been a mixture of his and Meredith's (i.e. that he couldn't have carried Meredith's blood alone, without any mixing in of his own). Let me suggest just one completely rational and feasible scenario that would serve to disprove this ill-conceived logic:

What if Guede attacked Meredith, and got cut by his own knife on just one hand in the process? If that had happened, then presumably both of his hands would have Meredith's blood on them, whereas only one of his hands would also have his own blood on it. Therefore, it would be perfectly feasible for some of the things Guede then touched (eg the handbag/purse) to have a Meredith/Guede DNA mixture left on them, but for other things he might have touched (e.g. the light switch) to have only Meredith's DNA deposited.

 

[Bruce Fischer]

It's not ridiculous at all. We 'know' that Meredith's blood on Rudy's hands was mixed with his DNA, as shown by the blood on Meredith's handbag. Yet, his DNA is suddenly miraculously missing from the (supposedly) same blood from the same hands deposited in the bathroom (sink, light switch, etc). Therefore, that blood must have been put there by somebody 'else'.

This is not true. Just because Rudy's DNA may have mixed with Meredith's blood on his pinky finger doesn't mean that his DNA mixed with Meridith's blood on his thumb.

If you dip your hand in blood and make ten hand prints on a wall. You might get mixed DNA results in come of those prints and not others.

Other samples in the cottage where it is apparent that blood was left by a hand, do not show mixed DNA. This proves that blood on your hand will not always produce a mixed sample.

 

[Danceme]

But even if you're right, harbouring a murderer is a criminal offence in itself. So AK and/or RS would have been suspects in that offence instead. Either way, the police must logically have had to have suspicions that either AK/RS were involved in the murder (a criminal offence), or they knew who was involved in the murder and had not told the police in prior interviews (also a criminal offence), in order to warrant a phone tap.

Yes, I'm absolutely sure they had their suspicions. Wouldn't you, if you were questioning a couple of witnesses who said they were together all night but each time they were questioned separately the events and times of their supposedly mutual evening do not align? Think like a cop, what would you have surmised....that they were probably hiding something maybe? Hence, a phone tap to see what it could be. I do not see anything unusual in this. The only issue is whether phone tapping of witnesses or "persons of interest" is illegal in Italy or not. That may then become a technicality that helps in their appeal.

Danceme,

You ignore the fact that Amanda has basically had two stories: what she said on the night of November 5th and what she has said at all other times. You also ignore what Dr. Giobbi and others said made them suspicious, things like her alleged hip-swivel and her reacting so strongly to the knives.

Giobbi says these things made him suspicious, yes, but I am sure it was this behavioral anomaly heaped on top of the conflicting alibi details and all the "I don't remember"s which really caused a focus to be placed on Amanda and by extension, Rafaelle.

If you witnessed this hip swivel and the breakdown reaction to the knives from a person you already thought had trouble keeping an alibi straight, as a policeman wouldn't you get suspicious? I would.

 

[katy_did]

It's not ridiculous at all. We 'know' that Meredith's blood on Rudy's hands was mixed with his DNA, as shown by the blood on Meredith's handbag. Yet, his DNA is suddenly miraculously missing from the (supposedly) same blood from the same hands deposited in the bathroom (sink, light switch, etc). Therefore, that blood must have been put there by somebody 'else'.

This is really quite a ludicrous argument.

Rudy's DNA wasn't 'mixed' with Meredith's blood in the way that you suggest; it wasn't in the mixture he had on his hands. He had her blood on his hands, and in the case of the bag, he touched it with enough force or friction to leave skin cells. In the case of other things he touched, he may not have. It's not a case of him having a bloody mixture of his own and Meredith's DNA on his hands in equal proportion (presumably mixed 'in a blender', as Bruce says), thus inevitably leaving traces of DNA from both himself and Meredith on everything he touched!

It's even arguable that having blood on his hands may have made him less likely to leave his own DNA on certain surfaces, like the light switch for example, because there would have been less friction between his hand and the switch due to the slipperiness of the blood.

On another note, it still bemuses me that the obvious explanations are so completely overlooked on this and other issues. Rudy had blood on his hands. He went into the bathroom. Someone with bloody hands left blood in the bathroom. Yet we're supposed to jump from that to assuming that someone else (i.e. Knox) left that blood in the bathroom instead, even though there's no evidence to show she had bloody hands - and not just that, we're supposed to assume she deliberately left just the right amount of blood there in order to raise just the right amount of suspicion the following day, and that all this was meticulously planned? Doesn't exactly meet the 'Occam's Razor' criteria, does it?!

 

[katy_did]

Upon reading Amanda's testimony concerning the "hitting" incident, it narrows down who she claims gave her at least one blow.

Amanda gives quite a bit of information about this policewoman, physical description, where she was in proximity to Amanda and her job during the interrogation. Wouldn't there be a document available with names of the police who took part in the interrogation of November 5 and 6 and from the transcripts of the interrogation be able to determine who Amanda was speaking of (if things did happen the way that Amanda said they did)?

I think Chris Mellas said the policewoman who hit Amanda was the one on the right in this picture. Wouldn't have thought there were too many women meeting the description Amanda gave who were there that night!

I'm guessing Amanda's reluctance to name her was either that, well, she didn't know her name, or that she was reluctant to make the allegation more specific, given the risk of more slander charges.

 

[HumanityBlues]

It's clear that Italy doesn't share you opinion. And that is something that Amanda and her parents should have taken into consideration. That they didn't is hardly the fault of Italy.

I've traveled around the world, lived in a number of different countries and each and everyone of those countries have their own set of 'weird/silly' laws. You ignore those at your own peril though.

How do you know what Italians think of the law?

 

[stilicho]

Stiliicho,

Your 8th point ignores the fact that Raffaele backed up Amanda's testimony on November 8th, his last word on what he did that evening. Raffaele's times were wrong, but not about what happened.

If it were only eight points that needed to be answered (and you picked one out of the eight) then there might be hope for them on appeal. I selected eight before I gave up. There are scores of similar points and they all need to be addressed by the defence.

Amanda gives quite a bit of information about this policewoman, physical description, where she was in proximity to Amanda and her job during the interrogation. Wouldn't there be a document available with names of the police who took part in the interrogation of November 5 and 6 and from the transcripts of the interrogation be able to determine who Amanda was speaking of (if things did happen the way that Amanda said they did)?

We had talked about this before. The woman who cuffed Amanda would have been easy to identify. There are two possible reasons that she wasn't named: (1) Amanda was not cuffed; (2) the lawyers did not find who was working at the Questura at that time and failed to supply Amanda with pictures so she could identify her assailant.

Take your pick

I think criminalizing slander and having a 6 year possible sentence on the books is ludicrous. I don't care what country it is. No matter what the outcome here, the fact is someone can get years in the slammer simply for saying the police hit them. That is an indefensible law on its face.

It's beyond that. I only have links to Italian sources. Part of the legal action includes Amanda's charges that her interpreter assisted police by 'pressuring' her to name Patrick and to invent the story about he and Meredith having sex at the cottage. That means that at least one of those 'defamed' has a name and an occupation. Not only that but their role as interpreter was compromised by Amanda's charges.

At least you know now not to lie about police mistreatment if you get charged for a minor offence in Italy. On the other hand, what do you think about US laws that trick defendants into perjury convictions? It has happened in some high-profile cases there yet is impossible in Italy.

 

[HumanityBlues]

It's beyond that. I only have links to Italian sources. Part of the legal action includes Amanda's charges that her interpreter assisted police by 'pressuring' her to name Patrick and to invent the story about he and Meredith having sex at the cottage. That means that at least one of those 'defamed' has a name and an occupation. Not only that but their role as interpreter was compromised by Amanda's charges.

At least you know now not to lie about police mistreatment if you get charged for a minor offence in Italy. On the other hand, what do you think about US laws that trick defendants into perjury convictions? It has happened in some high-profile cases there yet is impossible in Italy.

Her role as an interpreter was not compromised. If you can show us any evidence that she did not get hired as an interpreter somewhere because of what Amanda said in court....you won't, don't bother. (Most people have a name and occupation). You can't just rubber stamp every argument made against Amanda as fact and then expect people to think your explanations have actual thought behind them rather than regurgitation.

Also, there's a law that tricks defendants into perjury convictions? That's a really complicated law you just described there. I don't think anyone has heard of this weird law.

 

[Mary_H]

Yes, I'm absolutely sure they had their suspicions. Wouldn't you, if you were questioning a couple of witnesses who said they were together all night but each time they were questioned separately the events and times of their supposedly mutual evening do not align? Think like a cop, what would you have surmised....that they were probably hiding something maybe? Hence, a phone tap to see what it could be. I do not see anything unusual in this. The only issue is whether phone tapping of witnesses or "persons of interest" is illegal in Italy or not. That may then become a technicality that helps in their appeal.

Giobbi says these things made him suspicious, yes, but I am sure it was this behavioral anomaly heaped on top of the conflicting alibi details and all the "I don't remember"s which really caused a focus to be placed on Amanda and by extension, Rafaelle.

If you witnessed this hip swivel and the breakdown reaction to the knives from a person you already thought had trouble keeping an alibi straight, as a policeman wouldn't you get suspicious? I would.

Danceme, you are repeating the myth of "many lies." There is no evidence Amanda and Raffaele had conflicting alibis or said "I don't remember" before their interrogations on the 5th and 6th. Any confusion on their parts was voiced only after the interrogations.

To think like an Italian cop, specifically Giobbi, we would have to become suspicious when 1.) Amanda cries, 2.) she swivels her hips, and 3.) she eats pizza with Raffaele.

http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-504083_162-20000577-504083.html?tag=mncol;lst;6

 

[Mary_H]

It's clear that Italy doesn't share you opinion. And that is something that Amanda and her parents should have taken into consideration. That they didn't is hardly the fault of Italy.

I've traveled around the world, lived in a number of different countries and each and everyone of those countries have their own set of 'weird/silly' laws. You ignore those at your own peril though.

Is there a law against telling the truth in Italy?

 

[LondonJohn]

I think Chris Mellas said the policewoman who hit Amanda was the one on the right in this picture. Wouldn't have thought there were too many women meeting the description Amanda gave who were there that night!

I'm guessing Amanda's reluctance to name her was either that, well, she didn't know her name, or that she was reluctant to make the allegation more specific, given the risk of more slander charges.

Quiet here today, isn't it

I imagine we'll see when this criminal slander trial starts whether AK is now prepared to attach a name to the policewoman who she accused of hitting her. I imagine that by now she might be prepared to do just that, but she will still have to get over the hurdle of explaining why she couldn't identify the policewoman in the trial (I assume that all the police officers who had taken part in AK's interrogation were present in court when AK was asked to make her identification.........).

And again, I wonder if the whole Lumumba interrogation might be brought back into the arena. It bears repeating once again that Lumumba is quoted (directly) in the UK's Daily Mail on 25th November 2007 as saying that he was kicked and punched by the police during his interrogation, that he was forced up against a wall on his knees, and that his interrogators told him that if he confessed he'd get only half the 30-year prison sentence.

Now, it may be that the Mail completely invented these quoted remarks ("quoted" meaning that they were reported as direct speech within quotation marks) from Lumumba, but I'd currently judge that as unlikely - even by the standards of the UK press. It may also be the case that Lumumba did say these things, but that he lied in order to get more money from the newspaper. Again, I'd argue that this is unlikely, since in this scenario Lumumba would have clearly known that he was making very serious false allegations of police misconduct, with all that that entailed - both in terms of legal action by the police, but also in terms of his need for an ongoing relationship with the police vis-a-vis his bar business and personal life.

So my current belief with regard to Lumumba's quotes in the Daily Mail article are 1) that he did actually say the words ascribed to him; and 2) that he was genuinely recounting things which actually happened in the police station during his interrogations.

And, if my reasoning has any validity, I'd have thought that Lumumba could prove a very useful witness for the defence in the Knox criminal slander trial, and also in her appeal (even if he had to be forced by the defence to appear as a hostile witness!).

 

[RWVBWL]

I think Chris Mellas said the policewoman who hit Amanda was the one on the right in this picture. Wouldn't have thought there were too many women meeting the description Amanda gave who were there that night!

I'm guessing Amanda's reluctance to name her was either that, well, she didn't know her name, or that she was reluctant to make the allegation more specific, given the risk of more slander charges.

Hi katy did,
Thanks for the specific link to that photograph,
for I had never searched for this information, though I had wondered what the chestnut brown haired policewoman looked like.
If she did indeed whack, cuff, smack, or tap Amanda Knox in the head a few times with her hand to help Amanda "remember",
I guess she is denying it, and her co-workers are too,
or her co-workers must have been looking the other way when it happened,
or they are covering it up for her.

Or maybe Amanda Knox is just lying. But for some reason she keeps telling this story, though it serves her no good, so maybe it really happened, hmmm?

After reading the recent link that Fiona posted from the Village Voice,
which gives great insight of the inner workings a police precinct in N.Y. due to a police officer having used an audio recorder to tape the conversations, I could indeed see this happening as Miss Knox stated.
More of the "us against them mentality", if you get my drift...

RWVBWL


PS-Thanks Fiona for that VV link.
One thing I learned from that VV story was to drive very careful at the end of the month!
Quota's, quota's, quota's, even though every cop that I know and had asked always told me that there are not supossed to be quota's, at least in my city...

 

[katy_did]

PS As an addendum to the "Bongiorno/appendicitis" issue, a little decent research throws up some interesting facts.

The San Marino Conference 2009, at which Bongiorno spoke (viz the newspaper report linked previously) was on 20 November 2009.

http://www.centrocongressisanmarino...vents/calendario.20.11.2009.html?tipoevento=-

The day when Bongiorno was reported in the Italian media to have contracted appendicitis was 22 November 2009:

http://www.lagazzettadelmezzogiorno.it/GdM_dallapuglia_NOTIZIA_01.php?IDNotizia=286709&IDCategoria=1

This report says that she was admitted to hospital with the illness. If true, that would imply that she was admitted to hospital on 21st November (or possibly even late on the evening of 20th November). The pain of appendicitis can come on fairly rapidly (from nothing to intense pain within a matter of hours). So this is all entirely consistent with Bongiorno feeling relatively well at the time she addressed the San Marino Forum on the 20th, then being admitted to hospital on either the late evening of the 20th or any time on the 21st.

It sure doesn't sound to me like she was putting on an act for any reason. And it also doesn't sound to me like she was simultaneously claiming to be ill while nonchalantly finding the energy to attend a conference in San Marino. It's amazing what a little good research can uncover.....

Fulcanelli's source for Bongiorno 'faking' appendicitis was Barbie Nadeau, I think. Based on previous form, I presume Nadeau's source was a police officer's girlfriend's cousin's mother. If I were gonna bet on it, I'd wager that your sources are a little more reliable.

 

[Mary_H]

Quiet here today, isn't it

I imagine we'll see when this criminal slander trial starts whether AK is now prepared to attach a name to the policewoman who she accused of hitting her. I imagine that by now she might be prepared to do just that, but she will still have to get over the hurdle of explaining why she couldn't identify the policewoman in the trial (I assume that all the police officers who had taken part in AK's interrogation were present in court when AK was asked to make her identification.........).

All things being equal (which they aren't), that hurdle shouldn't be too high. It took Rudy four months to ID Raffele, it took Quintavalle six to ID Amanda, and so on. To be fair, they should allow Amanda to peruse the early news stories and photos for a while before she decides whodunnit.

 

[LondonJohn]

All things being equal (which they aren't), that hurdle shouldn't be too high. It took Rudy four months to ID Raffele, it took Quintavalle six to ID Amanda, and so on. To be fair, they should allow Amanda to peruse the early news stories and photos for a while before she decides whodunnit.

Haha yeah. Maybe AK could firstly be repeatedly shown various photos of the policewoman with the long chestnut hair, all of which could be captioned "This is definitely the policewoman who hit Amanda Knox during the interrogation". And then, at the end of that, she could be asked to identify the policewoman who hit her during the interrogation.....

 

[RWVBWL]

Hi all,
I like to keep looking at the whole picture of this particularly brutal crime, and I try to do so with an open mind.
I was again watching the Amanda Knox-Full Statement 2/2 YouTube video that Bruce Fisher posted:

http://injusticeinperugia.org/videos.html

and Amanda Knox states that she did not delete her "sent" cellphone messages and then even stated that she didn't even know how to do something as simple as that!

But yet she is often portrayed as a criminal mastermind,
one who incredibly could clean up her own DNA+fingerprints, and her boyfriend's too,
from a bloody bedroom/apartment where a brutal murder had taken place.
Without removing her "cohort" Rudy Guede's DNA+fingerprints...

She being of a devious, evil mind decided to bring over a huge kitchen knife to "tease/torment her housemate one night while no other housemates were home, and then, after stabbing her housemate while in the company of her new boyfriend and another guy, who was practically a stranger, brilliantly remembers to bring that same huge kitchen knife back to her boyfriends apartment and scrub it clean, so no one, such as the housekeeper, would miss it. But Amanda Knox, she who cleans up her DNA+fingerprints extremely well, left one on this big ol' murder weapon.

She seems to be portrayed as a calm, cool murderess who,
unlike most other murderers I would imagine, doesn't even try to leave town to run and hide afterwards, but instead works daily with the police trying to help catch a murderer, and actually visits the police station on her own free will, continuously being available to try and "help" these police solve the crime.
And this "criminal mastermind" does not even suspect that the police were suspicious of her and hire a lawyer?

She being born with a brilliant criminal mindset that made her think to "stage" a fake break-in, and not steal anything, and then do a clean-up while 1 of her cohorts went out dancing, decided to come back hours later while the house still wasn't finished being cleaned up, looking pretty wearing a white skirt to then finish and/or await the police to show up.

And yet this "mastermind" did not delete or even know how to delete the "incriminating" text
"OK, I'll see you later" from her sent phone messages?

I bet some of the "guilter's" will say that it's the small details that will trip up the criminal, which is often true. But I do not believe that to be true in this particular case.
In my opinion, formed from much reading, and then continuously reading even more, including some of the doc's that RoseMontague linked, and watching Miss Knox testify, there is much reasonable doubt, in my mind at least, that Amanda Knox is not guilty of the crime of murdering her roomate, Meredith Kercher...
RWVBWL

 

[stilicho]

Her role as an interpreter was not compromised. If you can show us any evidence that she did not get hired as an interpreter somewhere because of what Amanda said in court....you won't, don't bother. (Most people have a name and occupation). You can't just rubber stamp every argument made against Amanda as fact and then expect people to think your explanations have actual thought behind them rather than regurgitation.

Also, there's a law that tricks defendants into perjury convictions? That's a really complicated law you just described there. I don't think anyone has heard of this weird law.

Perjuring yourself in your own defence is impossible in Italy. It happens in the US though. I apologise for typing that too quickly for you to understand but you probably know the cases from memory.

I don't understand your nitpicking about the defamation. I was illustrating that the calumny (calunnia) charge goes beyond the 'cuffing' or 'pressuring' Amanda claimed. Why didn't Amanda identify the woman who 'cuffed' her when asked in court? If she had already tacitly identified her interpreter as part of the group of officers 'pressuring' her then what prevented her from stating the name of the one who 'cuffed' her?

Amanda will have her chance in court to defend herself. The charge and her opportunity to defend herself are factual and not simply regurgitation of opinion. It is my opinion, however, that she will not defend herself at all but claim she was too exhausted or too stoned or something and cannot remember who struck her. This has been a feature of her defense all along. To those who feel that she will 'chirp', you're almost certainly wrong. Amanda cannot suddenly have the fog of uncertainty lifted while she still has appeals left in the murder charge.

The Italian law is defensible in that it offers protections and recourse for law enforcement professionals that they don't enjoy here in Canada.

 

[Fiona]

I do not know who has portrayed her as a criminal mastermind. It is certainly not a thought that has ever crossed my mind. I am more apt to wonder how she ever got into a university in the first place, given the quality of her writing. But if some do think that fair enough: there are many different strands of opinion I am sure.

What I do not see is how any part of the body of your post (which concerns things she did which might not be seen as very bright) has any bearing at all on whether there is reasonable doubt about the conviction. It just seems to be a non-sequitur to me. Can you make the connection that you see more explicit ?

 

[Alt+F4]

But yet she is often portrayed as a criminal mastermind

Cite? Who has often portrayed her as a "criminal mastermind"?