Continuation - Discussion of the Amanda Knox case

[TellyKNeasuss]

So much hyperbole and misinformation here. Let's go down the list:

"find the door ajar but no one home":
The door was known to swing open if it wasn't locked. Thinking that someone had forgotten to lock the door might be unusual, but not alarming.

Agreed.

"find blood splattered in the bathroom":
What a droplet of blood in the sink? A dark, soggy footprint on the mat? Sounds like you've been looking at the old photos of the "blood-spattered bathroom" caked in Luminal. Look at the bathroom for yourself and you'll see that there was nothing alarming:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=n71ZJPBq8uk&feature=player_embedded#!

That's a dark, soggy, bloody footprint. I personally would be starting to feel a little uneasy. And I forgot to mention the human waste in the toilet, and Amanda said that none of her roommates would have left the toilet unflushed. So now you have an unopened door, blood splatters, and a strong suspicion that someone else had been in the apartment (and since some of the bedroom doors were closed, there was no guarantee that this person was not still in the apartment). (As an aside, my understanding is that most Italian toilets are "dry". If this is the case in the apartment, there would have been an odor in the bathroom, so why didn't she flush the toilet[If it had been me, I would have flushed the toilet even if it was an American-style "wet" toilet], especially since Amanda must have been very clean-conscious for her to take a shower in the morning after [according to her statements] taking a shower with Raffaele the previous evening).

"find a window broken out and a bedroom ransacked and not even think about calling the police":
Wrong. They called the police once they saw these things the second time she went back with Rafaelle. She would have had no reason the first time to go looking in her roommates' rooms.

The police were not called until 17 minutes after she called Filomena about the "break-in", only after the postal police had shown up and after Amanda called her mother, a phone call that Amanda claims to not remember having made. An example of Amanda forgetting some detail about the day of the murder?

"Or even try to contact the roommate whom she expected to have spent the night in the apartment (no, dialing cellphone numbers and hanging up after 3-4 seconds doesn't constitute trying to contact someone).":
Wrong again. Here are the cell phone records. Amanda called Meredith's cellphones three times, and each time received either an "out of service" message or her voice mail.

Oh, excuse me. She called one of the phones twice. In no case did she let it ring for a reasonable amount of time (in the USA, the typical time before voicemail kicks is about 25 seconds). Nor did she leave a message. Hardly consistent with someone who has a strong interest in contacting someone.

 

[TellyKNeasuss]

Thoughtful over at PMF has made an excellent post on the cellphone activity. http://www.perugiamurderfile.org/viewtopic.php?f=1&t=223&p=43061&hilit=cell+phone+records#p43061

That should answer your questions.

It shows that Amanda called Meredith first. Amanda stated that she called Filomena first.

 

[Mary_H]

Hello Fiona: Yes, I forgot that that Raffaele also told the police that Amanda had asked him to lie. That is major, imo. Anytime anyone asks for someone to back up their alibi, it is highly indicative of a cover up. At the time of their questioning of Raffaele, I don't believe the police had any reason to imagine Amanda being a culprit. I think they were trying to break Raff's alibi, not Amanda's. They may have assumed HE had used Amanda as HIS backup. That Amanda was covering for him. Raffaele had been called into questioning. They suspected Raffaele, Amanda came with him, did omewrk, and some extra curricular activities, and when Raffaele backed down, THEN Amanda was questioned. This sequence is important, I feel. Amanda must have been shocked and scared when confronted with Raff's *betrayal*. The naming of Patrick was desperation. Anything to get out of there, and find out how to do damage control. I know this is supposition, but in view of what transpired, it seems logical. Even if one believes a couple of cuffs to the back of the head, and some shouting, that couldn't be SO traumatic as to not only blame your boss, but to add, he wanted Meredith, he's bad, I'm scared of him. She wanted Patrick picked up asap, so that she could question Raffaele. Well, we know that didn't happen, Raff and Amanda could not re connect, and Raffaele then adds to the breakdown of the story, in his diary, with no police present, and digs Amanda in deeper. Without coersion, without needing to. Freely written. This speaks volumes. imo.

I agree that the first half of your paragraph is logical, even though I don't agree that it's what happened.

If that were what happened, why would Amanda not respond the same way Raffaele did to the police's questioning, that is, why didn't she admit she couldn't be sure if Raffaele had been home all night while she slept? Then they could have gone back to Raffaele and told him Amanda is no longer supporting his alibi, and then started working him over.

Why did they give up so easily on Raffaele and move on to a more persistent interrogation of Amanda, especially when it was less likely Amanda would have been involved in a sexual assault, and Raffaele was the one who carried knives? It definitely appears they had their minds made up about Amanda being the more "interesting" person of interest.

The naming of Patrick may have been a desperate attempt to get out of there, but why Patrick? Out of all the men she knew in Perugia, why her boss, with whom she got along so well and liked so much? She had given the police the names of a couple of shady characters; why not blame one of them?

I think it is safe to believe Amanda's testimony -- Patrick's name did not spring spontaneously to her mind. The police insisted she name him.

 

[Mary_H]

____________________________-
Hi capealadin.

Yes, and Raffaele was the first to "break" for the simple reason that he was the first to be interviewed the night of November 5. Both the lovebirds showed up with the intention to change their story. The cops weren't buying their initial alibi. Neither lovebird was coerced. No need to. Both were in the mood to sing.

Are you psychic? Because that is the only possible way you could have access to what Amanda and Raffaele's intentions and moods were that night.

Amanda probably came with a plan to tell a story akin to Rudy's story. A LONE WOLF broke in while she and Meredith were home, a struggle ensued---maybe in Filomena's room too--- resulting in Meredith's death. (And leaving behind evidence of Amanda's presence.) She was too scared to call the cops and was too scared to tell the truth, for fear of reprisal. This isn't the story she did tell because during the course of her interrogation she realized that the cops would find her "Patrick did it" story more plausible---which, apparently, they did.

Why would Amanda come with a plan to tell a story when she didn't know she was going to be questioned again? As far as she knew, she was just there to wait for Raffaele. And why would she come with a plan to tell a story different from the one she had been telling the previous three days? That wouldn't help her credibility much.

The only reason the cops found Amanda's "Patrick-did-it" story more plausible is because that was the "story" they were after. His number was on her phone, which they knew, from their access to phone records during their investigation.

But it didn't matter what Amanda told the cops, she was going to be arrested anyway. By that time Raffaele had already acknowledged to the cops that he had changed his story, and had changed his story because Amanda had so asked. The cops saw the collusion and that, in conjunction with their respective (and profound!) amnesia for events of November 1, was sufficient to make 'em official suspects and detain them. A trap of their own making. The cops merely spectators.

///

Well, you've got that part right; Amanda was going to be arrested regardless of what she said. The judge admitted that, in the report that said the plan was to take Amanda in before her mother got into town.

There is no explanation in your scenario for why Raffaele was arrested for murder. Amanda said nothing in her accusation of Patrick about any involvement on the part of Raffaele. If all Raffaele knew was that something might have happened while he was asleep, why was he even taken in?

 

[TellyKNeasuss]

More questions:

9) Why did Rudi kill Meredith rather than climbing back out the window when he heard someone entering the apartment? Since Filomena's door was closed, Meredith would not have seen him simply by walking into the aparment. Hindsight is 20-20, but Rudy would not have been caught had Meredith not been murdered. There was no evidence indicating that he was ever in the apartment other than that directly related to the murder.
10) Did Amanda and Raffale eat dinner together or did Rafaele eat alone.
11) What time did he/they eat dinner?

 

[HumanityBlues]

I find it implausible that a woman who had just left her boyfriend, came home to find the door open, etc., etc., and the first thing she didn't do was call him when she realized things were strange. It's the first thing I would think of. He either could have eased her mind about it or come straight over to check things out with her. I can't believe she didn't call him.

Amanda called Meredith's english phone which didn't answer, then she called Filomena but didn't tell her she had already tried to call Meredith. Then she called Meredith's english and italian phones for several seconds each, no answer or voice mail. Then Filomena called her back several more times, (though in her email Amanda describes these calls as herself calling Filomena). After all this, at 12:47, she calls her mother in Seattle for the first time to tell her she found strange happenings at home and Edda tells her to call the police.

Respectfully, your standards for what is implausible (based on your own subjective inclinations) are pretty low according to what you've just written.

 

[Malkmus]

I actually was just making the point that it appears that it is valid for those arguing on Amanda's side to make claims based on what seems "likely" or "reasonable" but not for those on the other side.

It's a double-edged sword. I don't think anyone on either side has claimed that the other can or can't make claims of what is likely or reasonable. This is a forum where all thoughts are welcome and subsequently debated. The reason there is so much debate, though, is that much of the circumstantial evidence is weighed subjectively; so those who think she's guilty look at everything she does as the actions of a guilty person and vice versa with the side who thinks she's innocent. Personally, my problem with those who think she's guilty give themselves too much credit and Amanda not nearly enough. Hence, hearing things like "Well, I wouldn't have caved in to pressure during an interrogation" and "Well, I would have called the police as soon I saw the front door open and a drop of blood in the sink" don't ring true to me if simply for the fact that it's "easier said than done". And if I could I would put my money where my mouth is and bet that any of you, if put in the same situation, would not have acted the way you think you would.

 

[Bob001]

I actually was just making the point that it appears that it is valid for those arguing on Amanda's side to make claims based on what seems "likely" or "reasonable" but not for those on the other side.

I would say that the difference is this: Speculation about what is "likely" or "reasonable" does not constitute the "proof beyond a reasonable doubt" that the prosecution is required to present before sending someone to prison for decades, but it could be enough for the defense to raise reasonable doubt about the certainty of the prosecution's case. If you can imagine that the defense's version could be true, that is enough to raise reasonable doubt.

 

[Bob001]

In Vanity Fair, Judy Bachrach wrote “The Italian legal system, ecclesiastical judge Count Neri Capponi informs me, will not work in Amanda’s favor. ‘Our system stems from the Inquisition and also from medieval law,’ he explains. What this means, in effect, he says, is that justice in Italy ‘is based on the supremacy of the prosecution. This nullifies the fact—written in our constitution by the way—that you’re innocent until proven guilty.’”

This Bachrach story is worth reading. It was written before the trial and it seems to rely on some details that are subjects of dispute in this thread (the condition of the bathroom, the grocery owner's claims, etc.). But it's noteworthy because it recounts stories of Knox's apparent social ineptitude going back to high school ("general ditziness"), and says her cluelessness helped make her a suspect: she just didn't behave the way Italian police and people who knew her thought she should behave. It's also notable that she told her parents the police threatened to be harder on her if she insisted on a lawyer.

http://www.vanityfair.com/culture/features/2008/06/perugia200806?printable=true&currentPage=6

Also according to the story, she acquired numerous boyfriends in a short time in Italy and was pretty casual about sex. If that's true, I think it works in her favor, at least in connection with this case. It's hard to believe that she would kill someone for any reason having to do with sex if sex meant so little to her. Sex murders are committed by abandoned husbands and betrayed lovers and deranged psychopaths, not by people who see sex as a casual recreational activity.

[FONT=Verdana, sans-serif]
[/FONT]

 

[Fiona]

This Bachrach story is worth reading. It was written before the trial and it seems to rely on some details that are subjects of dispute in this thread (the condition of the bathroom, the grocery owner's claims, etc.). But it's noteworthy because it recounts stories of Knox's apparent social ineptitude going back to high school ("general ditziness"), and says her cluelessness helped make her a suspect: she just didn't behave the way Italian police and people who knew her thought she should behave. It's also notable that she told her parents the police threatened to be harder on her if she insisted on a lawyer.

I think I have seen this bit before: it is where we began is it not?

 

[TellyKNeasuss]

It's a double-edged sword. I don't think anyone on either side has claimed that the other can or can't make claims of what is likely or reasonable. This is a forum where all thoughts are welcome and subsequently debated. The reason there is so much debate, though, is that much of the circumstantial evidence is weighed subjectively; so those who think she's guilty look at everything she does as the actions of a guilty person and vice versa with the side who thinks she's innocent. Personally, my problem with those who think she's guilty give themselves too much credit and Amanda not nearly enough. Hence, hearing things like "Well, I wouldn't have caved in to pressure during an interrogation" and "Well, I would have called the police as soon I saw the front door open and a drop of blood in the sink" don't ring true to me if simply for the fact that it's "easier said than done". And if I could I would put my money where my mouth is and bet that any of you, if put in the same situation, would not have acted the way you think you would.

Was the only blood a drop in the sink? What about the report of bloody footprints (thought to be Rudi's) leading towards the apartment door?

As far as what I would do in the same position, well I'm pretty paranoid so, for example, on Saturday when I encountered a car with a freshly broken out window in a shopping mall parking lot I notified the mall security (it turned out that the owner had somehow managed to break the window).

 

[katy_did]

Just reading through the bit in Raffaele's appeal about Quintavalle (kindly posted by Rose over on PMF). I didn't realize he'd done a Kokomani, and said he saw AK/RS at a time they couldn't have been there. He's supposed to have said he saw them together in his shop two weeks before the murder, and was even able to describe in detail what they were wearing. Problem is, that was a week before they actually met...

The motivations, however, seem to have ignored this fundamental fact: that in his statements Marco Quintavalle also affirmed having seen Amanda in his shop a couple of weeks before 2 November (transcript from the hearing of 21.03.2009, p.76), this time in the company of Raffaele. In this regard it has to be noted that this fact cannot in any way be true, since Amanda Knox and Raffaele Sollecito had known each other - and this fact is certain and conclusive - just a week before the murder. Nonetheless, the memory of the witness is so sharp as to enable him to describe even the clothes worn on that occasion by the two young people: "[Raffaele] had light clothing, a light coloured shirt, beige, some similar colour, also light trousers. Then I noticed that strangely he had no glasses on that evening (...). She was wearing jeans, then had a pair of boots let's say Timberland make (...) she had a sweater (...) of wool or heavy cotton (...) red or something similar" (transcript of 21 March 2009, p.77).

I'm curious as to the impact the dismissal of Quintavalle and Curatola's testimonies might have, if it happens. Massei seems to have woven quite a bit around Quintavalle's testimony (i.e. it's supposed to prove Amanda was lying about sleeping till 10, that she went to clean up, and so on) but the defence do a pretty good job of discrediting it.

 

[BobTheDonkey]

About rudy's bloody shoe prints going to the front door, imagine him reaching the door, turning the knob and....nothing, the door not budging. His panic must have been beyond belief, locked in with the body of the woman he had just murdered with no way out. His hand too injured to make the climb back out the window, what to do? Rudy soon realizes he has to find the front door key to make his escape. He returns to the murder room, the blood on his shoe now dissipated so he leaves no tracks. Once there he realizes he can't reach the lamps in the room without tracking through blood, perhaps he flips the switch to the overhead light but it's too bright, highlights the horror of the scene and is more easily seen from the outside so he shuts it off. He has Meredith's British cell phone in his pocket because he took it from Meredith when he interrupted her call to her mother at 8:56PM. He flips it open and uses the light to search for the keys, accidently dialing the first number in Meredith's address book which happens to be her bank. He finds the keys! Back to the front door where he tries to insert the keys in the lock, but disaster once again, the keys don't fit (they are, of course, the keys to the boy's house downstairs)! So, once again he has to trudge back to the murder room but on the way he glances in and sees the lamp in Amanda's room and makes a detour. He sets the keys to the boy's house down in Amanda's room and picks up the lamp so that he has a little more illumination in Meredith's room. Once back in Meredith's room he rummages around, perhaps getting some of the wet blood on his hand as he searches for the right key in Meredith's purse. Perhaps he wipes this blood off his hand on the towel that was setting on the bed. When he finds the set of keys he decides to try them first on Meredith's door before he goes back to the front door to make sure he has the right set of keys. In his search he has also found the other cell phone, money and Meredith's bank card, all of which he pockets. As he walks out of the room he key locks Meredith's door, perhaps thinking he can lock away this horrible incident. Without any blood left on his shoe there is no trace of him locking the door. He lets himself out of the house, turning the regular door lock because he has no idea that it is broken and that the door will swing open unless it is key locked.

Excuse me...the blood just "dissipates" from the soles of his shoes...

How convenient...

 

[Malkmus]

That's a dark, soggy, bloody footprint. I personally would be starting to feel a little uneasy. And I forgot to mention the human waste in the toilet, and Amanda said that none of her roommates would have left the toilet unflushed. So now you have an unopened door, blood splatters, and a strong suspicion that someone else had been in the apartment (and since some of the bedroom doors were closed, there was no guarantee that this person was not still in the apartment). (As an aside, my understanding is that most Italian toilets are "dry". If this is the case in the apartment, there would have been an odor in the bathroom, so why didn't she flush the toilet[If it had been me, I would have flushed the toilet even if it was an American-style "wet" toilet], especially since Amanda must have been very clean-conscious for her to take a shower in the morning after [according to her statements] taking a shower with Raffaele the previous evening).

But again, that's how you feel you yourself would act in that situation. You would have called the police. Amanda felt suspicious enough to make the brief walk back to her boyfriend's and bring him back with her to inspect. You seem to feel that any person presented with those findings in their apartment would have called the police, where the most alarming find was a droplet of blood in the sink and a footprint on the mat that may or may not have looked like blood to the naked eye. The question I pose to you is, if you could magically compose a case study where 25 people were subjected to the same scenario as Amanda can you say with certainty that all 25 would have called the police, or would some have been hesitant and gotten a friend/loved one involved first?

The police were not called until 17 minutes after she called Filomena about the "break-in", only after the postal police had shown up and after Amanda called her mother, a phone call that Amanda claims to not remember having made. An example of Amanda forgetting some detail about the day of the murder?

When I look at the call logs I don't see a problem, namely because in between the call to Filomena and the first call to police we can precisely see their actions. They weren't standing around twiddling their thumbs. Rafaelle had to call and put more minutes on his phone, then his dad called him, the Amanda called her mom to tell her what they found, then Raf calls his sister who tells him to call the police, which he then immediately does.

Oh, excuse me. She called one of the phones twice. In no case did she let it ring for a reasonable amount of time (in the USA, the typical time before voicemail kicks is about 25 seconds). Nor did she leave a message. Hardly consistent with someone who has a strong interest in contacting someone.

She called three times. The one where it rang only was 16 seconds, the other two times voice mail and out of service. So the strongest point here is that she didn't leave a voice message for Meredith, which in itself is hardly unreasonable, especially considering that they were trying to get immediate hold of Meredith.

 

[Malkmus]

It shows that Amanda called Meredith first. Amanda stated that she called Filomena first.

And this is suspicious/incriminating because....? What would she have gained by deliberately lying about this? Given all the phone calls that occurred that day and all the commotion, is it that unlikely that she got the order of some of the calls mixed up?

 

[Malkmus]

It's also notable that she told her parents the police threatened to be harder on her if she insisted on a lawyer.

Rafaelle also stated in court that he was denied phone calls either to his father or a lawyer the night of the 5th.

 

[stilicho]

"Raffaele turned on Amanda"

Actually, Raffaele agreed with the interrogators that he couldn't possibly know for sure if Amanda left when he was sleeping.

Raffaele agreed that Amanda could have left the house when he was sleeping. This is not a betrayal. Raffaele did not stop backing Amanda's alibi. He simply stated that he couldn't possibly know what was going on when he was asleep.

Cite?

Your conclusion is unjustified by the facts you present. Italian law has some better safeguards maybe. But certainly an accused doesn't have better safeguards in the Italy than the US or the UK by virtue of the way the burden of proof changes alone.

What safeguards would have prevented Amanda and Raffaele from supplying the Perugia police with a litany of conflicting, contradictory, and changing statements from 02 NOV 2007 until their arrests? I don't personally know of any. What safeguards would have prevented Amanda from writing her alibi email and the "gift"?

In this listing (corruption), Italy fares pretty poorly: http://www.transparency.org/policy_research/surveys_indices/cpi/2009/cpi_2009_table. US = 19th, UK = 17th, Canada = 8th...Italy = 63rd.

In this one they're listed as "Free":
http://www.freedomhouse.org/uploads/fiw10/FIW_2010_Tables_and_Graphs.pdf
Political Rights: US, UK, Canada and Italy all highest rated.
Civil Liberties: Italy is one rank lower than the other three.

Here's a look at Italy:
http://www.unhcr.org/refworld/country,,,,ITA,,4c1a1ea8c,0.html

The judicial system is undermined by long trial delays and the influence of organized crime. A bill backed by Berlusconi's government that would place a six-year cap on the length of trials in Italy's three-tier justice system was pending before parliament at year's end. The bill, which does not apply to mafia crimes, has been criticized by the opposition as it would apply retroactively and annul Berlusconi's current trials for tax fraud and corruption. Despite legal prohibitions against torture, there have been reports of excessive use of force by police, particularly against illegal immigrants. In August, the European Court of Human Rights ruled that an Italian police officer who shot dead a protester during the 2001 Group of 8 summit in Genoa was acting in self-defense. Some prisons system suffer from overcrowding.

Amanda did report excessive force by police but it's rather probable she lied about it. She isn't an illegal immigrant; she's a murderer.

Just as a comparison, I thought I'd dig up Peru, where Joran Van Der Sloot is claiming exactly the same things Amanda did (coerced confession, mistreatment, problems with translations, etc):

http://www.unhcr.org/refworld/country,,,,PER,4562d94e2,4c0ceada28,0.html

The judiciary is widely distrusted and prone to corruption scandals. The Constitutional Court, once seen as independent, has been accused of favoring the government in recent years; civic groups criticized its December 2009 decision to close a corruption case against a former army general based on a procedural violation. A 2008 Judicial Career Law improved the entry, promotion, and evaluation system for judges, and the judiciary's internal disciplinary body has been highly active in recent years. Access to justice, particularly for poor Peruvians, remains problematic.

An estimated 70 percent of inmates are in pretrial detention, and as of November 2009 the inmate population had reached nearly 200 percent of the system's intended capacity. Since 2006, an adversarial justice system has been gradually introduced with the hope that it will speed up and ensure greater fairness in judicial proceedings.

I wonder where the advocates for poor Joran are as the safeguards against a wrongful conviction in Peru appear to be considerably more lacking than in Italy.

Stilicho,

When I first encountered DNA electropherograms in which some loci were strong and others were weak or nonexistent, I was puzzled. Then I found one explanation for this phenomenon in Chapter 3 of Jason Gilder’s thesis, which is that the amplitude of peaks in a degraded sample is correlated with the size of the DNA fragment. One might characterize this work as applied biochemistry or molecular biology with a dollop of statistics, but characterizing it as purely computer science would be erroneous.

So Gilder wrote something you found useful. Is Krane's company being engaged by either defence team for the appeals?

 

[Sherlock Holmes]

Raffaele agreed that Amanda could have left the house when he was sleeping. This is not a betrayal. Raffaele did not stop backing Amanda's alibi. He simply stated that he couldn't possibly know what was going on when he was asleep.

The police went to Amanda and most likely left out the "sleeping" part of the questioning. Amanda was most likely told that Raffaele stated that she left during the night.

Or as you put it: "I'm thinking they just told her: your boyfriend isn't backing up your alibi"

That statement is false. Raffaele didn't turn against Amanda. He was pressured to agree with the fact that he couldn't know what Amanda was doing when he was asleep.

Amanda became confused because she couldn't understand why Raffaele would say these things.

This is pretty straight forward stuff. This happens all the time in interrogations.

It is one of your talking points that Raffaele stopped supporting Amanda's alibi. We all know that in reality he was only speaking about when he was sleeping.

And at what time did he say he went to sleep? No doubt after he rolled and smoked his spiff, made and ate supper and after he surfed the net, and of course the cleanup of water after the pipe broke and the long shower, washed Amanda's hair and cleaned her ears, is he saying after midnight maybe, after 2:00?

 

[Sherlock Holmes]

There is no evidence whatsoever showing that Amanda or Raffaele staged a break in.

But there is evidence of a stagged break in and they are the leading canidates for that break in, no one else is even close.

 

[Bruce Fischer]

It shows that Amanda called Meredith first. Amanda stated that she called Filomena first.

Too much emphasis is made on whether or not Amanda could remember the exact time that she made phone calls. I am under no stress.

I cannot remember the exact calls and the time of the calls that I have made over the past few days. This would be the same for most people.

Amanda was under extreme stress. Her friend had just been murdered. Amanda made several calls. It is not out of the ordinary that she would confuse the exact order of those calls.

When there is little to no evidence, small details are blown out of proportion in an attempt to make them look incriminating.