Continuation - Discussion of the Amanda Knox case

[Mr.D]

It has been brought up in several recent posts that Amanda Knox was not called to the Questura the night of the Nov 5. It has even been stated as a fact of things that are known for sure. I would like to challenge this idea.

Edgardo Giobbi

Interesting data point on Giobbi's statement, but I'm not convinced Matteini's is entirely on point. And while it weakens some of the reasoning behind the hypothetical scene I posted, it doesn't change it. Knox could have chosen to go with Sollecito without being told she was requested, and Sollecito's interview started first - consistent with the police looking for at least one male perpetrator.

."
-"EFFECTED PURPOSELY BEFORE THE ARRIVAL OF YOUR MOTHER"!, etc.

To me, that tells me that the police were out to arrest Amanda Knox before her Mother arrived.

When did Knox's mother arrive and when would the police have known she was coming? "out to arrest Knox before her Mother arrived" is not an equivalent statement to "wanting to arrest her before the interview on the 5th."

However, I believe that the police then asked him a somewhat "philosophical" question: How could he be certain that AK had also been inside his apartment all night, when he had been asleep from around 11pm (say) until 9am (say)? Sollecito was then essentially obliged to agree that it was possible that AK had left the apartment as soon as he had fallen asleep.

I believe that the police then took this and distorted it into Sollecito "now" saying that he thought AK might have left the apartment during the evening/night. I believe that this is what the police then presented to AK in her interrogation, thus confusing and bewildering her as to why her boyfriend was seemingly "betraying" her - when he'd done nothing of the sort.

And then the police misunderstand Knox's outgoing text to Lumumba as confirmation that she did indeed leave. Take that back to Sollecito and bam! Now he's similarly confused.

The police now have two people who were

a) first on the scene,
b) but didn't call the police right away and
c) have "changing" stories which
d) conflict with each other.

Even if you think Knox is completely innocent, there is now a hypothetical scenario in which the police are highly suspicious of Sollecito being involved in the murder, and Knox of covering up for him after the fact, WITHOUT HAVING TO INVOKE MALICE on the part of the police. (Knox supporter's weakest argument IMHO)

 

[LondonJohn]

We have no evidence that the forensics teams did not investigate the pillowcase. In fact, we know they did since there are forensics photographs being trotted out as evidence that they didn't investigate it. Strangest thing I've ever seen.

You have erroneously drawn the conclusion that the stain is meaningful whereas it was not entered into evidence against any of the accused killers. That should be the last we hear of the Mystery of the Pillowcase Stain.

Now will you oblige me and answer my questions?

The answer to the question is this: Guede fled to Germany shortly after the murder, and it's also well-established that he wore the style of Nike trainers whose sole prints were found in blood in the murder house.

Each of you are answering a question I didn't ask or answer. Have women helped men commit sexual assault and murder? Yes they have. If you don't like the example of Karla Homolka we can find another one. I can certainly understand why Amanda's supporters don't like the comparisons to Homolka or to Kelly Ellard but all three are vicious and remorseless female killers.

But this completely overlooks the fact that Lumumba was seemingly kept in his cell until 16.00 or 17.00 that day without food or water (having been arrested at around 06.30), before Mignini even started interviewing him.

 

[Malkmus]

Guede's behavior is consistent with that of someone who is guilty as sin and knows it, and Knox's and Sollecito's behaviors are consistent with those of people falsely accused who are innocent, scared, confused and coerced.

I also believe that Raffaele's "computer activity" the morning after is not consistent with someone who's committed a murder. He was making a playlist in iTunes, probably for their trip that day. So, the thought process here is that he participated in killing Meredith, went back home to sleep, then woke up and decided not to go back to the cottage and clean up his tracks, but instead make sure he had the right tunes ready for their commute later that day! Or maybe he just wanted the right soundtrack to go with cleaning up a murder scene... Raf really should have gotten his priorities straight! Murder, then clean up, then sleep, then make your iTunes playlist.

Strange that so many think this act actually implicates him in the murder even more. Sheesh.

 

[Mr.D]

I am not trying to subvert your cause, Mr D.

I don't have any emotional attachment to this case, so I have no cause. The more reliable data, the better.

We know that early on, Meredith's British friends told the police they thought Amanda was involved in the crime.

How early on? Link? I remember seeing this claimed before, but my search-fu may not be up to the task.

 

[LondonJohn]

Interesting data point on Giobbi's statement, but I'm not convinced Matteini's is entirely on point. And while it weakens some of the reasoning behind the hypothetical scene I posted, it doesn't change it. Knox could have chosen to go with Sollecito without being told she was requested, and Sollecito's interview started first - consistent with the police looking for at least one male perpetrator.



When did Knox's mother arrive and when would the police have known she was coming? "out to arrest Knox before her Mother arrived" is not an equivalent statement to "wanting to arrest her before the interview on the 5th."

And then the police misunderstand Knox's outgoing text to Lumumba as confirmation that she did indeed leave. Take that back to Sollecito and bam! Now he's similarly confused.

The police now have two people who were

a) first on the scene,
b) but didn't call the police right away and
c) have "changing" stories which
d) conflict with each other.

Even if you think Knox is completely innocent, there is now a hypothetical scenario in which the police are highly suspicious of Sollecito being involved in the murder, and Knox of covering up for him after the fact, WITHOUT HAVING TO INVOKE MALICE on the part of the police. (Knox supporter's weakest argument IMHO)

I agree with much of this. And I personally have always argued from a position of possible police malpractice - which does not correlate to malice.

And, as a postscript, I wouldn't describe myself as a "Knox supporter". More like a supporter of the correct application of justice. So please bear that in mind when placing your bets in the big "lawyer"'s sweep stake........

 

[RoseMontague]

Interesting data point on Giobbi's statement, but I'm not convinced Matteini's is entirely on point. And while it weakens some of the reasoning behind the hypothetical scene I posted, it doesn't change it. Knox could have chosen to go with Sollecito without being told she was requested, and Sollecito's interview started first - consistent with the police looking for at least one male perpetrator.



When did Knox's mother arrive and when would the police have known she was coming? "out to arrest Knox before her Mother arrived" is not an equivalent statement to "wanting to arrest her before the interview on the 5th."



And then the police misunderstand Knox's outgoing text to Lumumba as confirmation that she did indeed leave. Take that back to Sollecito and bam! Now he's similarly confused.

The police now have two people who were

a) first on the scene,
b) but didn't call the police right away and
c) have "changing" stories which
d) conflict with each other.

Even if you think Knox is completely innocent, there is now a hypothetical scenario in which the police are highly suspicious of Sollecito being involved in the murder, and Knox of covering up for him after the fact, WITHOUT HAVING TO INVOKE MALICE on the part of the police. (Knox supporter's weakest argument IMHO)

I think the fact that the police were already "shouting" at Amanda and in her words "treating her like a criminal" as early as the 3rd indicates to me that the police were already going after her as a prime suspect even before Raffaele decided to drop her alibi and before the text message was revealed.

So planning to arrest her regardless of these things prior to her mother's arrival would not surprise me in the least.

 

[Malkmus]

And then the police misunderstand Knox's outgoing text to Lumumba as confirmation that she did indeed leave. Take that back to Sollecito and bam! Now he's similarly confused.

According to Nadeau, Raffaele was already arrested and his interrogation concluded by the time Amanda was taken into her interrogation room. She also highlights that Raff was placed under arrest because they had (falsely, as it would later turn out) matched his Nikes he was wearing at that moment to one of the bloody shoe-prints in the cottage.

 

[Bruce Fischer]

Two words: Karla. Homolka.



It's more than that. Eleven months of trial and testimony. Thousands of pages of evidence. None of it had to do with her snickering in court or her cartwheels in the police station. She was found guilty based on a mountain of evidence carefully presented and dutifully cross-examined by experts. She was found guilty unanimously.

Not once during her trial did her co-accused, Raffaele, stand up to make a spontaneous declaration of her innocence. Her own mother contradicted her under oath.

One person's "20-year-old coed" is another person's "20-year-old vicious and remorseless murderer".

You make bold statements that sound strong but when they are looked at more closely they become very weak.

When you say that her mother contradicted her on the stand, you make it sound like her mom declared her daughter a murderer. Or maybe it was just a misunderstanding about a phone call.

When you say the ruling was unanimous its sounds really strong but the truth is most rulings in Italy are unanimous.

Raffaele not standing up in court and announcing Amanda's innocence is an irrelevant statement. He spoke after the trial and said that Amanda could never hurt anyone. Amanda and Raffaele will continue to support each other and defend their innocence together.

Raffaele stated that it was possible that Amanda left the house when he was sleeping. This was only after the interrogators repeatedly told him that he couldn't possibly know if she was there or not because he was asleep. The talking point is that Raffaele turned on Amanda. The police used this as an interrogation tactic. It is very common. It certainly did not mean that Raffaele stopped supporting Amanda.

When I look at this case I certainly don't see a mountain of evidence. You have the right to your opinion but you don't have the information to back it up.

 

[Chris_Halkides]

no difficulties?

She'd talked to the cops several times without experiencing any difficulties.

Stilicho,

Taking a photograph of a stain is not investigating it completely. If the stain were investigated, then why don’t we know the answers to some simple questions? There are a number of reasons to want to know whether or not the stain is semen, and if it is, whose semen it is. Not the least of them is that if it is Rudy’s semen, it alters the nature of the assault and reduces his credibility, if that is possible. If it is the semen of an unknown male, that changes the case completely.

I can understand why you would want to change the subject away from the subject of investigatorial tunnel-vision (this subject would make a good book, IMO). Maybe you can explain how your statement above squares with Amanda’s comments to Laura about the police becoming belligerent. Or the conversation that ILE listened in on, the one where she said she was being treated like a criminal.

 

[Chris_Halkides]

bugged

When did Knox's mother arrive and when would the police have known she was coming? "out to arrest Knox before her Mother arrived" is not an equivalent statement to "wanting to arrest her before the interview on the 5th."

Mr.D,

Amanda's mother arrived on the 6th. The police listened to a conversation between Raffaele and Amanda where she mentioned her mother's arrival on the 3rd or 4th, IIRC. i second LondonJohn's point to the effect that tunnel-vision is not malicious, and I am not sure where you got the idea that that Knox's supporters believed that the police were malicious.

 

[RoseMontague]

Hence my use of the words "say".

And, in this regard, many have remarked on the "change of alibi" from Sollecito in particular when confronted by the police with evidence of his cellphone/computer activity in the early hours of the 2nd November. It's somehow seen as damning that Sollecito might have forgotten this, and equally damning that he might have changed his story accordingly when proof of his early morning activities was presented to him.

However, I personally can perfectly easily reconcile this - to me, it doesn't necessarily indicate any deliberate attempts to obstruct, forget or misdirect on Sollecito's behalf. I myself frequently wake up at strange early hours, get up to go to the bathroom, then check emails, voicemails, online newspapers etc - all in a kind of semi-awake state. Then I go back to sleep again. More than once, I've sent someone an email in this way, then they've spoken to me a day or two later and said something like "what were you doing emailing me at 4.30am?!" And initially, I forget that I'd sent that email at that time.

And it could be that the computer activity as defined by the police is not entirely accurate:

"The sentence of First Instance based its considerations on
interactions on the computer-MacBook Pro Raffaele Sollecito on
advice produced by the police post.
This technical activity, however, as demonstrated by the defense counsel,
can not be regarded as methodologically sound:
1. Is based on prior selection of some files through the software
EnCase which operates using only three dates (among the five found in
Mac), and a subsequent investigation of some of the info
file resulting from this selection using "Spotlight" and / or the Finder, ie
the GUI operating system (eg see report on "The fantastic
World Amelie ").

Edited by Tricky: 

Edited for rule 4. Please provide a short quote and a link. Do not paste large blocks of text from other sites.

Quote is from RS appeal doc

Full quote can be found here:
http://forums.talkleft.com/index.php?topic=2118.30

 

[Malkmus]

You make bold statements that sound strong but when they are looked at more closely they become very weak.

When you say that her mother contradicted her on the stand, you make it sound like her mom declared her daughter a murderer. Or maybe it was just a misunderstanding about a phone call.

When you say the ruling was unanimous its sounds really strong but the truth is most rulings in Italy are unanimous.

Raffaele not standing up in court and announcing Amanda's innocence is an irrelevant statement. He spoke after the trial and said that Amanda could never hurt anyone. Amanda and Raffaele will continue to support each other and defend their innocence together.

Raffaele stated that it was possible that Amanda left the house when he was sleeping. This was only after the interrogators repeatedly told him that he couldn't possibly know if she was there or not because he was asleep. The talking point is that Raffaele turned on Amanda. The police used this as an interrogation tactic. It is very common. It certainly did not mean that Raffaele stopped supporting Amanda.

When I look at this case I certainly don't see a mountain of evidence. You have the right to your opinion but you don't have the information to back it up.

Add this one to the list:

When did she say the toilet would lead to the real killer?

It was featured prominently in her alibi email.

What Amanda's e-mail actually said:

After i got dressed i went to the other bathroom in my house, the one that
filomena dn laura use, and used their hairdryer to obviously dry my
hair and it was after i was putting back the dryer that i noticed the
**** that was left in the toilet, something that definately no one in
out house would do. i started feeling a little uncomfortable and so i
grabbed the mop from out closet and lef the house, closing and locking
the door that no one had come back through while i was in the shower,
and i returned to raffael's place.

 

[BobTheDonkey]

According to Nadeau, Raffaele was already arrested and his interrogation concluded by the time Amanda was taken into her interrogation room. She also highlights that Raff was placed under arrest because they had (falsely, as it would later turn out) matched his Nikes he was wearing at that moment to one of the bloody shoe-prints in the cottage.

And according to Amanda's testimony, it likely happened while Amanda was in the interrogation room...

Whichever.

 

[Malkmus]

Why? Amanda has no prior experience with being interviewed during a murder investigation. She doesn't hasn't been arrested/detained prior to this event. How would she know how criminals are treated?

If I were brought in for questioning by the police and they were yelling at me, as Amanda states in the phone call, I'd feel like I was being treated like a criminal too. If the police are yelling at you it's generally because they think you're guilty of something. It doesn't matter what knowledge Amanda has of police procedure during an interrogation. The point is she felt like she was being treated like a criminal. If I feel like my office of employment has the conditions of a sweatshop, it simply implies that the conditions are exceptionally bad. I don't have to have actually worked in a sweatshop to know that excessively long shifts and unfair wages are what generally define the term. The same logic can be applied to Amanda's statement.

 

[Mary_H]

So...let me get this straight.

In your version, because Raffaele dropped her alibi and the Police kept asking her where she was that night, she became confused and claimed that Patrick was the murderer?

That's...quite a leap, Mary.

One doesn't simply go from: "I was at Raffaele's all night" to "It's PersonX (who just so happens to be the most convenient at the time). He's the murderer" simply because one has been called a liar in regards to his/her whereabouts.

What the wha -- ?! You know perfectly well what the story is. Amanda was questioned from somewhere around 10:30 or 11 until she signed a statement at 1:45. In the interim, the cops isolated her, pressured her, argued with her, tried to convince her her story was wrong, suggested new scenarios and characters, called her a stupid liar, told her there was concrete evidence of her at the crime scene, threatened her with thirty years in prison and never being able to see her family again, accused her of being a liar, whacked her on the back of the head and told her her boyfriend had ratted her out.

Is that enough psychological pressure for you? No "leap" necessary to get from Point A to Point B -- her accusation of Patrick, or something along similar lines, was a predictable result of the methods they used.

It is to Amanda's and her parents' credit that it took her only a little longer than the interrogation itself for her to undo the "indoctrination" and revert to her original stance. A suspect with less strength and integrity might have taken a great deal longer to get her bearings back, which would look more suspicious, because it would raise questions about why it took the suspect so long to insist the cops were mistaken.

 

[Mr.D]

Mr. D, I think your explanation is a lot easier to accept, with the police suspicion on Sollecito

I don't want to be too picky, but what I posted is not an explanation, but a hypothetical situation which I contend fits the overall accepted evidence better than some other proposals.

Of course there may be some insurmountable problems with my scenario, and it fails to provide for any real explanation of why Knox would accuse Lumumba, but I think it was a worthwhile mental exercise.

 

[Mr.D]

I agree with much of this. And I personally have always argued from a position of possible police malpractice - which does not correlate to malice.

IIRC. i second LondonJohn's point to the effect that tunnel-vision is not malicious, and I am not sure where you got the idea that that Knox's supporters believed that the police were malicious.

You are both correct. I should have been more clear.

Some (probably a small minority) of Knox's supporters have suggested the Perugia police acted with premeditated malice with respect to Knox and her interview on the 5th. My comment about malice was aimed at them and not at anyone else.

According to Nadeau, Raffaele was already arrested and his interrogation concluded by the time Amanda was taken into her interrogation room.

Nadeau isn't accepted as accurate by "both" sides. My hypothesis was coming from the direction of trying to use only information that everyone seems to agree on.

Do you have an independent source for this timing?

 

[Amazer]

If I were brought in for questioning by the police and they were yelling at me, as Amanda states in the phone call, I'd feel like I was being treated like a criminal too. If the police are yelling at you it's generally because they think you're guilty of something. It doesn't matter what knowledge Amanda has of police procedure during an interrogation. The point is she felt like she was being treated like a criminal. If I feel like my office of employment has the conditions of a sweatshop, it simply implies that the conditions are exceptionally bad. I don't have to have actually worked in a sweatshop to know that excessively long shifts and unfair wages are what generally define the term. The same logic can be applied to Amanda's statement.

Police yelling at you really doesn't indicate that you are being treated like a criminal. It simply means that you are not cooperating with the police in manner that you are required to.

 

[quadraginta]

<snip>

When you say the ruling was unanimous its sounds really strong but the truth is most rulings in Italy are unanimous.

<snip>

You know, most convictions in a jury trial in the U.S. are unanimous. Of course, this may be because a unanimous verdict is required to bring back a conviction. I'm not sure if this is also the case in Italy, but that is really unimportant.

This does not mean that the weight of evidence presented to achieve a unanimous verdict is somehow less "strong". It means it had to be strong enough to convince all those people. Unanimously. Otherwise there is no conviction.

 

[Mary_H]

I have no idea where you got the notion that I think real life complies with TV shows and textbooks. I think we can agree that TV shows are by their very nature distortions of reality. Textbooks are often outdated.

I posted an excerpt from an article written by Special Agent John B. Edwards, the head of the Statesboro office of the Georgia Bureau of Investigation. I also provided links to the full article in html and pdf format so the portion I quoted coud be read in context.

The point I was trying to make is that the three persons I mentioned should have been questioned as a matter of routine.

You may be right about Guede though, because it's very possible that his name may not have came up, now that you mention it. I thought TJMK had information showing that the victim knew Guede(and maybe even well enough to allow him into the flat) - but am unable to locate it now.

Meredith did know Guede, at least by sight, probably by name, and maybe even well enough to let into the cottage. She had attended at least two functions where he had been present, and once she had walked back to the cottage in a group of people of which he was one. Guede's attorney, Walter Biscotti, even included in his closing statement at Guede's appeal trial that it was well within the realm of possibility that Guede and Meredith had indeed had a date that night.

As far as Curatolo is concerned, the guy lived on a bench, near the cottage. I would think that the officers who patrol the area would be very familiar with him, and ask if he'd seen or heard anything unusual that night(unless they thought he was unreliable).

The failure to contact Mr. Lumumba puzzles me the most and here is why:

A staged break-in was suspected and AK couldn't be ruled out as a suspect, so why not contact her employer? Not as a suspect, but just to ask some basic questions. Questions such as, 'when did you last see Amanda?', 'when did you last speak with Amanda?'. I think a junior member of the team or even a uniformed officer could have gone to his home or business to simply ask a few questions.

You'd be absolutely right to say hindsight gives us an advantage over the investigators, who were operating in real time. They had no way to know how enlightening an interview of Mr. Lumumba may have been.

Very true. You may be interested to know the police reportedly interviewed 84 people, including Amanda and Raffaele, yet overlooked interviewing Patrick, who was not only Amanda's employer, but was rumored to have wanted to offer Meredith a job AND was known to some as the "most famous man in Perugia."

But that was my reason for quoting the article. My understanding of the way these things go, is that as much information as possible is gathered while it's fresh and untainted. Significance can be determined later.

I hope I'm being clear. I am happy to be shown where Im mistaken.

As to the last four paragraphs of your post, I'm sure they weren't directed at me specifically, so I'll not comment, except to say that I agree with much - but not all - of what you wrote there.

"...that as much information as possible is gathered while it's fresh and untainted" is also the view of former FBI agent Steve Moore, who has written many words to that effect on injusticeinperugia.