Continuation - Discussion of the Amanda Knox case

[Mary_H]

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.

Excellent point, Malkmus, especially, "Or maybe he just wanted the right soundtrack to go with cleaning up a murder scene..."

 

[Mary_H]

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)

Regarding c) and d), I think it's a bit of a stretch to say the police are suspicious about the "changing" stories, because what little evidence we have points to the police having put the stories into the kids' heads -- that is, the cops knew what these stories were before the suspects did. I don't think Raffaele even had a story -- all he did was agree with the police that he couldn't know whether Amanda was with him the whole night because he was asleep part of the time.

Amanda said in her testimony that the police led her on a path toward accusing Patrick, and that they kept dwelling and focusing on him as if he was all they were interested in talking about. She didn't go into the interrogation with the story of Patrick, so again, it is most likely she just agreed with the police's version of events.

Regarding b), I have gotten the feeling that the citizens of Perugia are indeed, hesitant to call their police except when absolutely necessary. Amanda and Patrick did call the police within 2 1/2 hours of the time Amanda first arrived home, but they consulted with at least three other people before doing it, because they weren't sure there was really anything to worry about.

Of all the witnesses eventually involved in the case, I think the only one who called the police in a timely manner was Roman Mero, the professor from Switzerland who was Patrick's alibi. Coincidentally, he was not Italian.

 

[TellyKNeasuss]

Not to mention the question was "how often" does a murder like this happen, not "has this ever happened before".

I've been wondering this myself. How often does someone go into someone else's apartment, murder one of the residents, go out and retrieve or buy some cleaning supplies, return to clean the apartment despite not knowing whether any of the other residents might walk in the door at any moment, and then ransack another bedroom and break a window to give the appearance that the murder was committed by someone who did not live in the apartment?

 

[Bob001]

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.

You don't really mean this, do you? You are certainly not required to cooperate with the police, if "cooperating" means agreeing with their suppositions and accusations, complying with their demands and confessing to whatever they say. Others have insisted here that the rules that apply to police in the U.S. are not much different in Italy: You don't have to talk to the police at all, you don't have to go with them or remain with them (in most circumstances) unless you are under arrest, and if you are under arrest you are entitled to a lawyer. If the police are yelling at you it's always because they want you to do something that will be bad for you and that you don't have to do.

 

[TellyKNeasuss]

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.

What do you think that someone who couldn't sleep because they had just committed a murder might do? Count sheep? You really think that it is implausible that someone who couldn't sleep because they had just committed a crime would kill time by playing around on their computer?

And why didn't he go back and clean up the cottage? Maybe because he needed to buy bleach to clean the cottage and the grocery store didn't open until 7:30 (the time at which Ms. Knox showed up to buy bleach)? Maybe because they had locked the door when they left and he didn't know where Ms. Knox kept her key?

 

[TellyKNeasuss]

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 I don't touch weed, and barely drink........

Certainly (though I think that the murder of one's girlfriend's roommate might heighten one's mental awareness). And it's possible that Amanda Knox just by chance happened to buy bleach the morning after the murder. And it's possible that Amanda Knox just by chance decided to wash some of Meredith Kercher's clothes the morning after the murder. And it's possible that Amanda Knox's blood could have gotten mixed in with Meredith Kercher's blood in several different locations even if Amanda Knox was not present during the murder. And it's possible that Amanda and her boyfriend just by chance happened to decide to turn off their cellphones the evening of the murder. Even though I haven't been following this thread or the case in general I was able to come up with more than a dozen of these "it's possible that ..." items in a short time. And, of course, it's possible for more than a dozen improbable events to all occur.

 

[Sherlock Holmes]

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.

That is quite possible - but then the smart thing to do would be to tell the police that instead of saying you slept in til 10 - 10:30. That way, you don't seem like your hiding anything........

 

[GrouchoMarxist]

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.



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."




"...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.

Wasn't Guede also known to the boys downstairs? I thought I had seen a photo of him posing between two of them - they all had their arms on each others shoulders, like pals.

 

[Mary_H]

Wasn't Guede also known to the boys downstairs? I thought I had seen a photo of him posing between two of them - they all had their arms on each others shoulders, like pals.

Yes, he was a friend of theirs. At least some of the kids who helped the police during the days after the murder put his name on their lists of Meredith's acquaintances.

 

[Fine]

Regarding c) and d), I think it's a bit of a stretch to say the police are suspicious about the "changing" stories, because what little evidence we have points to the police having put the stories into the kids' heads -- that is, the cops knew what these stories were before the suspects did. I don't think Raffaele even had a story -- all he did was agree with the police that he couldn't know whether Amanda was with him the whole night because he was asleep part of the time.

___________________________

Well, according to Raffaele, he did lie to the cops, in that he pretended to remember an event that he really didn't remember. Here is his diary entry:

"Today the court questioned me and said that I gave three different
statements, but the only difference that I find is that I said that Amanda brought me to say crap in the second version, and that was to go out at the bar where she worked, Le Chic. But I do not remember
exactly whether she went out or less to go to the pub and as a
consequence I do not remember how long she was absent. What is all my
difficulty? I do not remember this, for them, important detail,
therefore I don't break and we're investigating her. I tried to help
in the investigation trying to remember and now I've brought myself to
this place, better I did nothing and limit myself to say that I
remained at my house and I would be spared so much unrest. We speak of
something other that is better ..." (See PMF, BOARD INDEX, IN THEIR OWN WORDS)


And this story wasn't suggested by the cops! According to Raffaele the story had been suggested by none other than Amanda. If Raffaele is being honest in this statement---a very big IF---the natural interpretation is that Raffaele must have misunderstood Amanda's statements to him, since her best alibi would have been for the two staying all night at his flat ....nestled all snug in their bed, while visions of sugarplums danced in their heads.

So I think Raffaele is being, umm, less-than-honest in this diary entry. (The same diary with his "I pricked Meredith" explanation for the DNA on his knife.) He did tell the cops Amanda left his flat but he didn't say this because Amanda told him she had left. (Would Amanda confide this to Raffaele even if she HAD left?) I think he told this to the cops in order to distance himself from Amanda's activities the night of the murder. Not a brilliant decision as he quickly learned......"and now I've brought myself to this place." He blames Amanda, and himself. But not the cops.

///

 

[LondonJohn]

Wasn't Guede also known to the boys downstairs? I thought I had seen a photo of him posing between two of them - they all had their arms on each others shoulders, like pals.

Yes. I've previously wondered whether Guede's first port of call that night might have been the boys' house, and that maybe he was looking to score and/or smoke some dope. I wondered whether Guede, on discovering that all the boys were away, then went upstairs and knocked on the girls' door, to see whether AK (whom he knew and whom he knew to smoke up) - or even conceivably Meredith (whom he also knew peripherally, who was known to smoke up ocasionally*, and who was dating one of the "suppliers" downstairs) were at home.

* Although it's not mentioned in "polite" circles that Meredith smoked marijuana in the company of others......

 

[LondonJohn]

Certainly (though I think that the murder of one's girlfriend's roommate might heighten one's mental awareness). And it's possible that Amanda Knox just by chance happened to buy bleach the morning after the murder. And it's possible that Amanda Knox just by chance decided to wash some of Meredith Kercher's clothes the morning after the murder. And it's possible that Amanda Knox's blood could have gotten mixed in with Meredith Kercher's blood in several different locations even if Amanda Knox was not present during the murder. And it's possible that Amanda and her boyfriend just by chance happened to decide to turn off their cellphones the evening of the murder. Even though I haven't been following this thread or the case in general I was able to come up with more than a dozen of these "it's possible that ..." items in a short time. And, of course, it's possible for more than a dozen improbable events to all occur.

Except:

1) The bleach purchase is heavily disputed, and no receipts for the purchases were found (despite some claims to the contrary).
2) I think there's a fairly broad agreement that nothing suspicious was found pertaining to the washing machine in the girls' flat.
3) The "mixed DNA" evidence is also heavily disputed - it currently appears possible that the police swabs collected Meredith's fresh blood which was laid on top of older DNA from AK.
4) The "coordinated cellphone switch-off" makes no sense if one accepts (as indeed the judicial panel did accept) that there was no premeditation.

Can we see more of your "more than a dozen" list? I appreciate that you're admittedly new to this case - as was I in early April of this year. And my views have changed since I learned more about the case. It's very easy in this case to get pushed in one direction or another from reading supposedly authoritative media reports, which in fact turn out to be agenda-led. In my view, it's only by looking at the whole picture (including the extremes at both ends) that one can have any chance of forming a reasoned view.

 

[Charlie Wilkes]

Certainly (though I think that the murder of one's girlfriend's roommate might heighten one's mental awareness). And it's possible that Amanda Knox just by chance happened to buy bleach the morning after the murder. And it's possible that Amanda Knox just by chance decided to wash some of Meredith Kercher's clothes the morning after the murder. And it's possible that Amanda Knox's blood could have gotten mixed in with Meredith Kercher's blood in several different locations even if Amanda Knox was not present during the murder. And it's possible that Amanda and her boyfriend just by chance happened to decide to turn off their cellphones the evening of the murder. Even though I haven't been following this thread or the case in general I was able to come up with more than a dozen of these "it's possible that ..." items in a short time. And, of course, it's possible for more than a dozen improbable events to all occur.

Amanda didn't buy bleach. If she had wanted bleach, she could have used some from the two bottles found at Raffaele's apartment. One was unopened, and the other was three-quarters full. Raffaele's cleaning lady testified that he bought them at her request and they did not appear to have been used since she went on maternity leave at the end of September 2007.

There is no evidence that anything at the cottage was cleaned with bleach or anything else after the murder.

Nor did Amanda do a load of wash. The damp laundry in the machine was probably started by Meredith the previous day. Police examined the contents of the washing machine and did not find anything to connect it to the murder. All of the clothes Meredith had been wearing were found in her room. All of the clothes Amanda had been wearing on November 1 were found in her room, on her bed, exactly where she told police she had left them after taking a shower on the morning of November 2. It's not her fault that investigators waited almost five months to gather these clothes and confirm that she was telling the truth.

Nor was Amanda's blood mixed with Meredith's blood. They found Amanda's DNA mixed with Meredith's DNA. They also found Amanda's DNA mixed with Sollecito's DNA at his apartment. It means nothing.

 

[BobTheDonkey]

You don't really mean this, do you? You are certainly not required to cooperate with the police, if "cooperating" means agreeing with their suppositions and accusations, complying with their demands and confessing to whatever they say. Others have insisted here that the rules that apply to police in the U.S. are not much different in Italy: You don't have to talk to the police at all, you don't have to go with them or remain with them (in most circumstances) unless you are under arrest, and if you are under arrest you are entitled to a lawyer. If the police are yelling at you it's always because they want you to do something that will be bad for you and that you don't have to do.

Always?



In all fairness, it was already bad for Amanda before the Police started yelling at her. If I were in her shoes, I would have been frightened as well - why? Because if I were guilty of murdering my roommate and the Police found out I'd been lying to them about my whereabouts during the time of the murder, yeah - I'd be pretty scared that I was going to be found out.



I do wish everyone would stop referring to her statement that night as a "coerced confession". It was not, in any way, intended by Amanda to be a confession to any wrong-doing. It was, actually, a deflection of the Police focus from herself to Patrick. The problem, of course, was once she'd accused Patrick, the Police wanted to know how she knew this - and by following the "stream of conscious" suggestions by the Police (because she didn't have a story of her own ready to go - she's winging it here, folks), she wound up implicating herself unwittingly.


I find nothing nefarious regarding the Police informing her that they knew she'd lied. I find nothing nefarious regarding the Police repeatedly asking/telling her to remember the text and to whom she'd sent it. I find nothing nefarious about the Police showing her the text message on her phone in an attempt to jog her memory. I find nothing nefarious about the Police raising their voices after her continued attempts to block their investigation/questions.

I wouldn't say Amanda's attempts to deflect the blame/attention to Patrick were nefarious in nature - but it was definitely not an innocent young woman being coerced into doing so.

Amanda's attitude in regards to this whole situation reminds me of a spoiled child who refuses to take responsibility for his/her actions. A child who was afraid what she did would be found out by her parents, so she points the finger at the closest/most available person hoping that it will throw her parents far enough off the scent that she won't get in trouble.

 

[RoseMontague]

Amanda's attitude in regards to this whole situation reminds me of a spoiled child who refuses to take responsibility for his/her actions. A child who was afraid what she did would be found out by her parents, so she points the finger at the closest/most available person hoping that it will throw her parents far enough off the scent that she won't get in trouble.

Bob, you are assuming the kid's guilt and that the parents are always right. The parents are not always right and the kids are not always guilty.

 

[TellyKNeasuss]

There is no evidence that anything at the cottage was cleaned with bleach or anything else after the murder.

Which is why the alleged footprints were only found by using "luminol"? And why no fingerprints of Amanda were found in her own bedroom or the bathroom or the bathroom? Even though she lived there?

Nor did Amanda do a load of wash. The damp laundry in the machine was probably started by Meredith the previous day. Police examined the contents of the washing machine and did not find anything to connect it to the murder.

Filomena testified that the washing machine was still warm when she arrived at the apartment in the morning. Therefore, it isn't possible for Meredith Kercher to have started the load of laundry.

 

[Supernaut]

Speaking for myself, this has nothing whatsoever to do with who Amanda Knox is, nor what she looks like*, nor what her education level is, nor what country she comes from. I fully appreciate that people are often not what they seem, and that people from all walks of life can commit horrific offences. I do however think it's appropriate to take Knox's (and Sollecito's) background into account to a small degree, but that the case should predominantly be decided on the actual evidence surrounding the crime itself. Certainly neither AK nor RS had any sort of history of violence against people, and I also think that both AK and RS have had their alleged sexual deviancy greatly over-analysed and over-exaggerated.

Again speaking purely personally, I don't even know whether Amanda Knox or Raffaele Sollecito are culpable or non-culpable of these crimes. I personally have no interest in "saving" a college student from Seattle, although I could understand why others who are closer to her or her family might. What I do have an interest in are the apparent inconsistencies in this case. I find the case to be a very interesting potential miscarriage of justice - and I want to discuss, argue and explore that idea. It may turn out that no such miscarriage has occurred, and I won't sleep any more or less soundly for that. But as I currently see things, I think that there might well be a reversal of the verdicts on appeal. That's where my personal investment in this case starts and finishes - at a purely intellectual/jurisprudence-led level.

* Furthermore (but more peripherally), I think that the distasteful little lust-driven innuendos that crop up from time to time in this regard (more notably on another forum, but they occasionally leach onto JREF) are disgusting and very discrediting to their authors.

You’re possibly being slightly less than honest with yourself here.

Many, if not most of those advocating Amanda’s innocence are doing so because of what they’ve learned about her, and hence from a position of empathy and sympathy for her.

it's about being humane, human, you know?

And there is nothing wrong in appreciating her looks - when I take pleasure in looking at my beautiful (and good natured) cat I’m not ‘lusting’ after her.

When I first heard about the case, my initial thoughts (like many peoples’) were “what a lovely looking girl, who’d have thought she could be so wicked?”. That said, to be honest I was already experiencing, shall we say, “cognitive dissonance” on reading what the press was saying about her.

I rather quickly discovered that in fact, that is on available evidence, there is every reason to believe she is exactly what she first appeared to be - someone not only unlikely to have committed the crimes she’s been accused of, but just about the last person on Earth who could have done.

You understand? The non-existence of physical evidence against her is confirmation of this.

(If the rest of this sounds like polemic or rant, apologies - I don't really have the time available to engage in discussion, so I'll get couple of other things said while I can.)

For me, what quickly followed was anger - at the Italian cops for the cruelty they inflicted on her, at the equally inhumane media-whores who so obligingly defamed her, and at the countless “joiners” (AKA “guilters”) who’ve come out of the woodwork to let everyone know how much pleasure it gives them.

And you know what? This malice toward her isn’t despite who and what she is (frankly, a near-perfect specimen in my opinion) but because of it.

Yes, I know Raffaelle is in prison too, and I have no less sympathy for him in that respect, but he hasn’t been emotionally and psychologically raped in front of the entire planet the way Amanda has.

Hatred and persecution of virtue is the manifestation of an age-old sickness – to me, Amanda Knox’s treatment has served as a barometer to reveal that under a veneer of “progress” it is as prevalent as ever was, and the implications are rather worrying.

 

[RoseMontague]

The main issue I find not convincing on the side of innocence is the "staged" break-in. I am still convinced it was staged. I don't see a convincing reason for Rudy to stage it and I do see reason for Amanda or Raffaele to stage it. I do not see any convincing forensic evidence that points to any of them. Rudy has little to say about it that I can find other than an interesting statement that he remembers the shutters being wide open but the window and glass intact and unbroken.
Amanda's appeal does not attack this issue very well and gives it little mention. Raffaele's appeal makes an attempt at it but falls short, in my opinion. The only new information I can see was a mention of Filomena's statement possibly from either a deposition or pretrial statement that she saw the glass on top as well as mixed in and underneath the clothes (rather than just on top).
I don't see it as very likely that Rudy entered by that window and even less likely that he would stage it. The only time I can see that he could have staged a break in would be either before Meredith was assaulted or several hours later. Neither of those options makes sense to me.

 

[Supernaut]

I have a linguistic and psychologic problem I am thinking about quite a lot of time:

It is the text of this message we are talking about for quite a time.
"See you later" - if I am correct.

that sounds so formal, so correct - It does not sound like all the young college and university-folks would express. They would write: 'ciao', or 'see U' or 'OK' or something like that. There is now established a specific SMS-slang with lots of abbrevations - if you are not 'in' - you would barely understand anything.
That 'see you later' does not at all fit in the picture. Its like you have inserted the wrong jig-saw piece.
**

I have also my problems with the expression: I was so scared! (you know, at this 'famous' interrogation)

First she waited in the waiting room, then started to do some homework (which would require sort of concentration), then did her notorious cartwheels and splits. **
Police came and sit beside her and started to ask her some questions, the same questions she already has been asked over and over again.
And now she is scared. But why scared??

I would find much better fitting expressions:
fed up, pissed off, ****** off, angry, upset, annoyed, tired - whatever you like, but not scared, that does not fit either.

Maybe I notice this because of reading and writing mostly with the help of my dictionary.

It’s a little difficult to see what you’re driving at here, but anyway;

No, the text did not say “see you later”, it was in Italian. Amanda had tried to translate it for an Italian speaker.

From what I gather about her, she was immensely enjoying learning the language, and probably took every opportunity to practice constructing phrases and sentences.

And obviously she was not, at that time, familiar with Italian ‘SMS slang’.

What she had actually done, though, was ‘transliterate’ (that dictionary of yours will be useful here) an English phrase which, it transpired, did not read the way she meant it to.

Apparently there are several ways it could be ‘understood’ by an Italian speaker, including “I will see you”, “I will see you later”, “I will meet you”. etc’.

You won’t be familiar with “The Two Ronnies” TV show, but they once did sketch which involved singing an old English children’s song called “Pop Goes the Weasel” (don’t worry, it’s known as ‘doggerel’) in another language, with subtitles ‘transliterating’ it back into English.

The title, which is the last line of the song, ended up as “A Small Furry Animal Explodes”. You understand?

Otherwise, I quite agree that if she had decided to leave it at “ciao” ……

Your problem believing that Amanda was scared by being confined in a room in the middle of the night with a bunch of angry cops some of who were apparently trying to scare her is, as you say, your problem.

 

[Mrs.Columbo]

Regarding c) and d), I think it's a bit of a stretch to say the police are suspicious about the "changing" stories, because what little evidence we have points to the police having put the stories into the kids' heads -- that is, the cops knew what these stories were before the suspects did. I don't think Raffaele even had a story -- all he did was agree with the police that he couldn't know whether Amanda was with him the whole night because he was asleep part of the time.

I would like to indicate that they are no kids,

at this time Ms. Knox was 20 yrs. old and
Mr. Sollecitio even 23 yrs.
therefore adult people, both of them highly educated and from educated background.