Continuation - Discussion of the Amanda Knox case

[RoseMontague]

An additional note on the questions regarding Halloween (from RS appeal/google translated)

"No buses left from Piazza Grimana, since, as demonstrated by
Ms Rita Pucciarini (from many years of organizing events) and Mr. George
Brughini (owner of the discotheque "Etoile 54") on 1 November has always been, evening
rest of the premises.
In fact, now also in Italy, we celebrate "Halloween" on the evening of October 31
and then the next day all the premises are closed.
Things stand should be "root" re-evaluated the testimony of
Curatolo."

 

[Mr.D]

Are you denying that guilters have claimed many times that it was within Amanda's power to get Patrick out of jail, but that she chose not to?

I believe the argument isn't that Knox had the "power to get Patrick out of jail," but that she had the moral responsibility to at least try.

And in the spirit of the rather more polite discourse brought on by moderation, would you mind refraining from the use of the "guilters" term? (The general admonition goes to all participants regarding loaded terms and such by the way)

 

[Bob001]

Read the transcript from her testimony, already. It's easily found on the PMF site in the "In Their Own Words" section of the forum.

You mean like this testimony (emphasis mine):

[AK: Yes. Um, the interrogation process was very long and difficult. Arriving
in the police office, I didn't expect to be interrogated at all. When I got
there, I was sitting on my own doing my homework, when a couple of police
officers came to sit with me. They began to ask me the same questions that
they had been asking me days...all these days ever since it happened. For
instance, who could I imagine could be the person who killed Meredith, and
I said I still didn't know, and so what they did is, they brought me into
another interrogation room. Once I was in there, they asked me to repeat
everything that I had said before, for instance what I did that night. They
asked me to see my phone, which I gave to them, and they were looking through
my phone, which is when they found the message. When they found the message,
they asked me if I had sent a message back, which I didn't remember doing.
That's when they started being very hard with me. They called me a stupid
liar, and they said that I was trying to protect someone. [Sigh] So I was
there, and they told me that I was trying to protect someone, but I wasn't
trying to protect anyone, and so I didn't know how to respond to them. They
said that I had left Raffaele's house, which wasn't true, which I denied,
but they continued to call me a stupid liar. They were putting this telephone
in front of my face going "Look, look, your message, you were going to
meet someone". And when I denied that, they continued to call me a stupid
liar. And then, from that point on, I was very very scared, because they
were treating me so badly and I didn't understand why. [Sigh] While I was
there, there was an interpreter who explained to me an experience of hers,
where she had gone through a traumatic experience that she could not remember
at all, and she suggested that I was traumatized, and that I couldn't
remember the truth. This at first seemed ridiculous to me, because I
remembered being at Raffaele's house. For sure. I remembered doing things
at Raffaele's house. I checked my e-mails before, then we watched a movie.
We had eaten dinner together, we had talked together, and during that time
I hadn't left his apartment. But they were insisting upon putting everything
into hourly segments, and since I never look at the clock, I wasn't able to
tell them what time exactly I did everything. They insisted that I had
left the apartment for a certain period of time to meet somebody, which for me
I didn't remember, but the interpreter said I probably had forgotten.]

From another section:

[CP: Listen, in this memorandum, you say that you confirm the declarations you
made the night before about what might have happened at your house with
Patrick. Why did you freely and spontaneously confirm these declarations?

AK: Because I was no longer sure what was my imagination and what was real.
So I wanted to say that I was confused, and that I couldn't know. But at
the same time, I knew I had signed those declarations. So I wanted to say
that I knew I had made those declarations, but I was confused and not sure.

CP: But in fact, you were sure that Patrick was innocent?

AK: No, I wasn't sure.

CP: Why?

AK: Because I was confused! I imagined that it might have happened. I was
confused.

CP: Did you see Patrick on November 1, yes or no?

AK: No.

CP: Did you meet him?

AK: No.

CP: Then why did you say that you saw him, met him, and walked home with him?

AK: Because the police and the interpreter told me that maybe I just wasn't
remembering these things, but I had to try to remember. It didn't matter if
I thought I was imagining it. I would remember it with time. So, the
fact that I actually remembered something else was confusing to me. Because
I remembered one thing, but under the pressure of the police, I forced myself
to imagine another. I was confused. I was trying to explain this confusion,
because they were making me accuse someone I didn't want to accuse.]

http://www.perugiamurderfile.org/viewtopic.php?f=8&t=165&start=0


I'm not a cheerleader for Knox. Maybe she lied at her trial. I'm just observing that without a recording of the interrogation no one can be sure. The transcript also shows entries where the lawyers and translator debate the meaning of words and phrases. I doubt that the cops in the interrogation room were quite so scrupulous.

 

[stilicho]

An additional note on the questions regarding Halloween (from RS appeal/google translated)

An additional note on the questions regarding Halloween (from RS appeal/google translated)

Quote: "No buses left from Piazza Grimana, since, as demonstrated by Ms Rita Pucciarini (from many years of organizing events) and Mr. George Brughini (owner of the discotheque "Etoile 54") on 1 November has always been, evening rest of the premises.
In fact, now also in Italy, we celebrate "Halloween" on the evening of October 31
and then the next day all the premises are closed. Things stand should be "root" re-evaluated the testimony of Curatolo."

[/quote]

This is due to an apparent and rather inventive distinction chosen between Curatolo's deposition and his statements in court. Those who were in Perugia on 01 NOV 2007 agree with Curatolo that there were buses and people wearing costumes on that date.

 

[Mrs.Columbo]

Raffaele had already muddled his part in act one: By claiming that there was a break in, but nothing has been stolen.
She could not really be sure of him, and therefore, when he was ordered to come to the the Questura, Ms. Knox decided to accompany Raffaele - to find out, whats going on, she 'must' know what will happen - in case something would go wrong she could react. And something went wrong indeed.
The interrogation of Raffaele seams to last far too long, and furthermore some Police-Officers joined her in the waiting room and interrogate her also.
With the breaking news of Raffaeles dropped alibi the interrogation logically increased.
I believe that she had the idea of accusing Patrick more or less spontaneously.When the police showed Ms. Knox her mobile phone and asked her about that message.
Raising the interest with some more "i am confused" or "I don't remember" she finally
accuses Patrick (as we all know).
In the following, while already under arrest, she felt that she has to give more weight into this accusation - hence her handwritten "gift".
Later then she created her "emergency-exit" with the cuffs and the psychical and physical pressure.

 

[christianahannah]

I'm not a cheerleader for Knox. Maybe she lied at her trial. I'm just observing that without a recording of the interrogation no one can be sure. The transcript also shows entries where the lawyers and translator debate the meaning of words and phrases. I doubt that the cops in the interrogation room were quite so scrupulous.

Perhaps if there are transcripts of the questions asked by the police and answers given by Amanda during the November 5-6 interrogation we might have a clearer understanding of whether Amanda was persuaded to answer a certain way by the police.

 

[LondonJohn]

You mean like this testimony (emphasis mine):

*** Testimony shipped for space ***.

Excellent post. This exactly mirrors my position regarding the "confession/accusation". In my view, whatever one thinks of Amanda Knox (even to the degree of her guilt or innocence in this crime), I think that what she says here is entirely consistent with the (few) known facts surrounding the police interrogation of her on the 5th/6th November. I don't think she's lying in this testimony. That doesn't mean she might not have lied in other areas, and nor does it necessarily make her innocent of the murder. But I think that the "confession/accusation" from the 6th was the result of police coercion/suggestion/intimidation/accusation, and I think that her testimony fairly accurately reflects what happened.

 

[Chris_Halkides]

a poor argument

I believe the argument isn't that Knox had the "power to get Patrick out of jail," but that she had the moral responsibility to at least try.

And in the spirit of the rather more polite discourse brought on by moderation, would you mind refraining from the use of the "guilters" term? (The general admonition goes to all participants regarding loaded terms and such by the way)

Mr.D,

Even if that were the argument of the pro-guilt contingent, it is a poor one. Once one's words have landed oneself in custody, one should make only those statements that one's lawyer approves. Fulcanelli's suggestion to the contrary makes me shudder for his clients, if he ever becomes a defense attorney.

The problems with this argument run deeper. The real responsibility for Mr. Lumumba's being in custody reside with both Amanda and her interrogators; however, without a recording of the interrogation, it is impossible to divide up responsibility in a quantitative way.

 

[stilicho]

I'm not a cheerleader for Knox. Maybe she lied at her trial. I'm just observing that without a recording of the interrogation no one can be sure. The transcript also shows entries where the lawyers and translator debate the meaning of words and phrases. I doubt that the cops in the interrogation room were quite so scrupulous.

That's an FOA talking point that I've bolded. The facts are that the interrogations were recorded but likely not by audio-visual means. We even know why they weren't recorded electronically. Amanda was not a suspect and there was no requirement to record them. Moreover, on the evening of 05 NOV 2007, she arrived at the Questura voluntarily and therefore her interview lay in what one legal expert called a 'grey area'.

The obvious question, assuming Amanda is right about any of what she said, is why she became scared, traumatised, or confused. She'd talked to the cops several times without experiencing any difficulties. She had gone to the station that night with Raffaele. She was variously busying herself doing homework by the elevator or turning cartwheels. Yet a short time later she was too scared, traumatised, and confused to think straight.

What happened in the interim? The one thing we know for certain is that she was told that Raffaele was no longer confirming her alibi. Her embellishments of the facts are irrelevant. The 'missing recording' trope is also irrelevant. Amanda's response--to blame Patrick--is the only thing that is relevant.

 

[LondonJohn]

The problem with your argument is that she has never shown evidence of "logic" in her actions and behavior regarding the police or the courts. If she was thinking with logic she would have done things she did not and would not have done things she did. Her giving this statement in order to go home would have to be considered consistent with her other non logical actions. Common sense is not one of her strong points.

I assume that you may be referring to AK missing the memorial service, making suggestive remarks in the lingerie shop, doing yoga exercises (or whatever) in the police station, making curt remarks about Meredith's injuries......

I'd argue that all these actions were more due to naivety, coupled with a general lack of awareness that she was in the spotlight. And the important factor in all of them is that they can only have made her seem more suspicious. So clearly the implication must be that she simply didn't think through the potential consequences of doing these things - in other words, she didn't think hard enough about the way these actions might be interpreted by others. Or, if not that, the other way to look at it is that she did think very hard about the potential interpretation, and consciously decided to engage in a risky set of double-bluffs - but I think that this option is very unlikely.

However, what we're being asked to consider with regard to the motivation for AK's "confession/accusation" is that she did go through a thought process with regard to the consequences of her statement, and that this thought process was along the lines of: "What can I say to get me out of here tonight and back to Raffaele's place?". And there's no evidence from her other actions to support the view that when she actually analysed any given situation, she arrived at irrational outcomes. The other actions are only indicative (to me) of a naive lack of analysis in the first place.

 

[RWVBWL]

Hi all,
I like to read A LOT about this particular murder case,
and try to do so, as I've written before, while still looking at the overall picture.
There has been much discussion recntly on the forum over at InjusticeinPerugia regarding the time of the scream Nara heard, which might be Miss Kercher's last.
So thinking about the whole picture, I post this "theory" regarding the time of the murder here also:

I happen to believe that it occurred much earlier than around 11:30pm, since from what I have read, Miss Kercher went home early from her girlfriends apartment, a bit before 9:00pm, because she was tired.

If she was tired, she would have probably put on her pajama's or nightgown on and went to sleep fairly soon after arriving home to her empty apartment, I would think.

BUT wasn't she found murdered with her bluejeans still on, though pulled down?

Since Miss Kercher did not have her PJ's on when found dead, that leds me to believe that the murderer(s) were in the apartment much earlier, possibly around the same time Miss Kercher came home.

If so, I find it hard to believe that Miss Kercher kept them company for some 2 1/2 hours before she was brutally stabbed to death, hence the murder most likely occurred much earlier, and Miss Allesandra Formica might have seen the murderer, (or 1 of them), leaving the general area around 10:30pm that night...
Any thoughts?
RWVBWL

 

[RoseMontague]

I assume that you may be referring to AK missing the memorial service, making suggestive remarks in the lingerie shop, doing yoga exercises (or whatever) in the police station, making curt remarks about Meredith's injuries......

I'd argue that all these actions were more due to naivety, coupled with a general lack of awareness that she was in the spotlight. And the important factor in all of them is that they can only have made her seem more suspicious. So clearly the implication must be that she simply didn't think through the potential consequences of doing these things - in other words, she didn't think hard enough about the way these actions might be interpreted by others. Or, if not that, the other way to look at it is that she did think very hard about the potential interpretation, and consciously decided to engage in a risky set of double-bluffs - but I think that this option is very unlikely.

However, what we're being asked to consider with regard to the motivation for AK's "confession/accusation" is that she did go through a thought process with regard to the consequences of her statement, and that this thought process was along the lines of: "What can I say to get me out of here tonight and back to Raffaele's place?". And there's no evidence from her other actions to support the view that when she actually analysed any given situation, she arrived at irrational outcomes. The other actions are only indicative (to me) of a naive lack of analysis in the first place.

I don't see any evidence that she analyzed anything. Her thought process was similar to having a kid at checkout of a grocery store. The kid is screaming for a candy bar, you give the kid the candy bar to shut the kid up so you can go home and have a glass of wine. You don't care if you are reinforcing bad behavior, spoiling your kid, giving the unfortunate child future dental problems, or guaranteeing the kid would end up with 3 divorces. That was her thought process, in my opinion. If she had any thought process at all she would have insisted on a lawyer 3 days prior to this event.

 

[LondonJohn]

It sounds to me like the pillowcase issue might become quite interesting on appeal. As I and others have argued before, it seems strange (to say the least) that tests on the stain were apparently refused - despite it appearing quite likely to be semen - for two ostensible reasons: a) Meredith was sexually active, so if the stains were semen, then they probably wouldn't have had evidential value (what?!); and b) The stains could not be dated, thus further reducing any evidential value.

As per previous arguments, Meredith only had a known sexual relationship with one person - her Italian boyfriend - in the weeks leading up to the murder. There is no evidence at all that she brought any other man to her room for sex while she was in Perugia, and nor is there any evidence that anyone else had access to her room for sex. So Meredith's boyfriend could easily have been asked for a DNA sample for comparison elimination.

If the stain were tested and found not to be semen, then most likely it would be of no value. But if it were semen, then presumably a DNA profile could be extracted from it. And this DNA could be compared with that of Meredith's boyfriend - the only man known to have had consensual sexual relations with Meredith in the weeks leading up to her death. If it was his semen, then again it would probably be of limited evidential value*. But if it were not his semen, then clearly the identity of the semen depositor would become extremely relevant to the case.

And as for the dating of the stain: not only is it unlikely (as mentioned in the appeal submission) that Meredith would want to sleep for more than one night maximum with a semen stain on her pillow, but Meredith's general bedding laundry routine could probably have been established. And if the appeal submission is correct in its assertion that the stain was smeared by the footprint on the pillow, then this would clearly indicate that whatever made the stain was wet at the time the footprint was made.

One thing rings out very loudly for me in all this though: why weren't these things properly argued in the original trial???? Is there anything in the appeal submission that wasn't known to the defence at the time of the trial? At this point, I don't think so. I therefore currently have serious doubts over Bongiorno, Dalla Vedova and Ghirga in this respect. And I'm also currently therefore assuming that these appeal points have been worked up by additional lawyers who have been added since the original trial (however, if there is new information that wasn't available at the trial, this would soften my view of the original trial defence lawyers).

* Although, if it could be shown that the semen was wet at the time of the murder, then this would imply that Meredith had either had sexual activity with her boyfriend just before the murder (and that he'd left the house before the killer(s) arrived), or that her boyfriend was involved in the murder itself.

 

[LondonJohn]

Perhaps if there are transcripts of the questions asked by the police and answers given by Amanda during the November 5-6 interrogation we might have a clearer understanding of whether Amanda was persuaded to answer a certain way by the police.

Who writes up the transcripts............? Did Amanda Knox sign all the interrogation transcripts* as a true and accurate record of the interrogation? Do transcripts necessarily reflect all (or indeed any) non-verbal communications?

* Not her statement, but the transcripts of the interrogation itself, between 00.30(ish) and 01.45 on the 6th.

 

[LondonJohn]

I don't see any evidence that she analyzed anything. Her thought process was similar to having a kid at checkout of a grocery store. The kid is screaming for a candy bar, you give the kid the candy bar to shut the kid up so you can go home and have a glass of wine. You don't care if you are reinforcing bad behavior, spoiling your kid, giving the unfortunate child future dental problems, or guaranteeing the kid would end up with 3 divorces. That was her thought process, in my opinion. If she had any thought process at all she would have insisted on a lawyer 3 days prior to this event.

Ah but in the example you've given, the mother would be correct to think that giving the kid a candy bar would shut him up in the short term. This is exactly analogous to the Amanda Knox situation. It's being argued that she only had a short-term goal - to get out of the police station. I would agree with you that she might well have neglected to think through any longer-term implications of her "confession/accusation" (analogous to the tooth decay, behavioural problems etc in your example).

And what I've argued is that even from a blinkered, narrow, short-term perspective, AK can never have thought that 1) placing herself in the house during the murder, 2) telling the police that she knew who did it, and 3) essentially admitting to having lied to the police up to that point about these two incredibly important things, could ever result in her being allowed to go home that night. She wasn't mentally retarded, and I'd argue that this is exceptionally basic logic that would occur to practically anyone in the same situation.

 

[Mary_H]

Ah but in the example you've given, the mother would be correct to think that giving the kid a candy bar would shut him up in the short term. This is exactly analogous to the Amanda Knox situation. It's being argued that she only had a short-term goal - to get out of the police station. I would agree with you that she might well have neglected to think through any longer-term implications of her "confession/accusation" (analogous to the tooth decay, behavioural problems etc in your example).

And what I've argued is that even from a blinkered, narrow, short-term perspective, AK can never have thought that 1) placing herself in the house during the murder, 2) telling the police that she knew who did it, and 3) essentially admitting to having lied to the police up to that point about these two incredibly important things, could ever result in her being allowed to go home that night. She wasn't mentally retarded, and I'd argue that this is exceptionally basic logic that would occur to practically anyone in the same situation.

I don't agree. The police were asking for help; she thought she was providing help. Helping other people usually leads to rewards, not punishment. I can't imagine Amanda was fearing any consequences during this time of panic, mainly because she knew she was innocent. She didn't even attribute the police's aggression to her own behavior; she thought they were under stress from trying to solve the murder.

The same with Raffaele. One gets the feeling from the report about him telling the police his previous answers were "un sacco di cazzate” that he was feeling nothing but relief and camaraderie with the police who, unbeknownst to him, were about to arrest him for murder.

Amanda and Raffaele were innocent, so they had nothing to fear, or so they thought. If they were any less naive than that, they would already have hired lawyers themselves.

 

[katy_did]

This is due to an apparent and rather inventive distinction chosen between Curatolo's deposition and his statements in court. Those who were in Perugia on 01 NOV 2007 agree with Curatolo that there were buses and people wearing costumes on that date.

I wonder why it was, then, that Curatolo felt the need to drop any mention of the "witches' costumes" when he came to testify in court...?

 

[RoseMontague]

An additional note on the questions regarding Halloween (from RS appeal/google translated)

More on this witness from same source:

The Curatolo, as mentioned above, appears to be a professional witness, having already
placed in two other previous processes by the media.
The Supreme Court has consistently held the absolute unreliability of texts
that are driven by a morbid protagonist.
Background to these comments, it should be noted in the ruling is
recovers a distortion of the statements made by Curatolo.
And, indeed, reads above, which <<is left believing that Curatolo
bench Grimana square between 23.00 and 23.30 when he left the bench and the
boys were gone. Therefore around 23.00 Amanda Knox, Raffaele
Reminder no longer in Piazza Grimana where Curatolo had seen them more
Sometimes>> (path p.. 73)
The Curatolo has, however, has repeatedly indicated that time spent by
boys <<fino to before mezzanotte>>.
The same statement is found in many other points of testimony
(Transcript of hearing March 28, 2009, pp. 5 et seq.)
150
Ø <<long before midnight that I was a bit 'tired of reading, I had
lit a cigarette, I always watch the world go by, the movement that
There is a square Grimana and then after them I have seen>>.
Or <<Question - So you saw them just before midnight e. ..
ANSWER - the last time.>>
Ø <<Prosecutor - MR. Mignini - So you see them shortly
before midnight. Then he does, he falls asleep?>> <<ANSWER - No,
after I smoke a cigarette and then go away>>.
Or <<Question - So you always saw them just before midnight
said? ANSWER - Yes>>.
Ø <<Then about nine and a half - the ten I've noticed these two guys up
at approximately midnight>>
Ø <<QUESTION: - Between 23 and after midnight, but she has not indicated here
time he sees the kids, that means you ...ANSWER - There are ...>>
Ø <<REQUEST - Exact, then looked to have four or
five times told me in an hour or an hour and a half.>>
<<ANSWER - Nearly two hours>>.<<ANSWER - Yes, there was much
people, then I was smoking a cigarette and there were no more either.>>
Ø <<REQUEST - Remember when he saw them there the last time?What
now? ANSWER - before eleven, eleven and a half, the last time you
I've seen.>>
Ø <<REQUEST - Then he turned and were gone?>> <<ANSWER
- Yes, this about eleven and a half, around midnight, after I
up who left the bus>>.
The witness stated that he saw for the last time the boys while lit
The last cigarette before going away, indicating that he departed from the square
Grimana just before midnight.
In addition, that during the brief information of witnesses -
ritually challenged by the PM - the Curatolo had even claimed to have
saw the boys <<among eleven and a half - after midnight>>.
151
In light of the statements in question can not be interpreted arbitrarily,
as does the Court, that the statements of the witness, pointing to a different time
that repeatedly stated therein, or midnight.
The Court anticipates the last time <<avvistamento>> of Curatolo, as
the literal and linear evaluation of the testimony in question whereby
two young men would spend the evening in the square Grimana until midnight,
should lead to say that is exactly the same text to provide an alibi to
two defendants.
And indeed, emerged in an incontrovertible that ten minutes after
Meredith midnight phones were already in the garden of Way
Sperandio.
In conclusion, therefore, any assessment of credibility of the witness
Curatolo has to extend the time specified by him, without
no bias.

 

[LondonJohn]

I don't agree. The police were asking for help; she thought she was providing help. Helping other people usually leads to rewards, not punishment. I can't imagine Amanda was fearing any consequences during this time of panic, mainly because she knew she was innocent. She didn't even attribute the police's aggression to her own behavior; she thought they were under stress from trying to solve the murder.

The same with Raffaele. One gets the feeling from the report about him telling the police his previous answers were "un sacco di cazzate” that he was feeling nothing but relief and camaraderie with the police who, unbeknownst to him, were about to arrest him for murder.

Amanda and Raffaele were innocent, so they had nothing to fear, or so they thought. If they were any less naive than that, they would already have hired lawyers themselves.

I can see your point of view, and it's clear (to me) that part of her motivation was wanting to help the police. But I still can't see how she could have thought that what she said and wrote down that night might have resulted in the police just saying "Thanks for that - better late than never, eh? You can go home now".....

 

[LondonJohn]

By the way, in general, I do think that "naive" appears to be a far more appropriate adjective to describe Amanda Knox than "cunning", "stupid", "sophisticated" or "intellectual".