Continuation - Discussion of the Amanda Knox case

[Dan O.]

Would you mind posting the photos of the scuffing and abrasions you refer to in this new theory of the break-in.

I don't believe Charlie has put all the photos up yet. But this one gives a good indication of how reachable the window is by traversing from behind the planter.

http://www.friendsofamanda.org/wall_showing_nail.jpg

It also looks like there was another nail or two on the left that recently got broken loose. Rudy would not have seen these nails while making the traverse in the dark so it would only be by chance that he would hit them with his feet while ascending.

 

[Fuji]

How many times are we going to go over and over this one talking point based on a total mistranslation?

How do you know it's a mistranslation? Are you fluent in Italian?

In context it's clear that Raffaele wrote that he remembered touching Amanda's hand with the knife.

No, in context it's quite clear that Raffaele was referring to Meredith's hand.

Yes, it's grammatically ambiguous, but the alternative interpretations make no sense whatsoever.

One of those alternative interpretations makes sense: a desperate and pathetic attempt to explain away evidence which RS had good reason to believe might exist. It's only an unreasonable interpretation if you "know" with metaphysical certainty that AK & RS are innocent. Which is, itself, an unreasonable position to hold, especially on a skeptics' forum.

It's an evil absurdity to twist AK and RS's attempts to make sense of what they were told by police into admissions of guilt.

The best way to make sense of what they were told would be to always tell the truth.

 

[LondonJohn]

How many times are we going to go over and over this one talking point based on a total mistranslation?

In context it's clear that Raffaele wrote that he remembered touching Amanda's hand with the knife. Yes, it's grammatically ambiguous, but the alternative interpretations make no sense whatsoever. He wrote this after being told that Meredith's DNA was on the knife from his house, in attempt to make sense of this claim - once again, RS and AK were naive enough to take everything the police told them at face value.

It's an evil absurdity to twist AK and RS's attempts to make sense of what they were told by police into admissions of guilt.

Addressing Charlie Wilkes' post, yes, I too had noticed an element of creepy sexuality and over-familiarity in some guilters' attitudes towards Amanda Knox, and I suspect that's a big part of why so much attention gets focused on her despite the fact that there's no evidence linking her to the murder room at all, and why so little focuses on Raffaele despite the (dodgy) footprint evidence and (dodgy) DNA evidence linking him more closely to the actual murder, not to mention his knives and comics. The only thing making Knox a more interesting subject is the fact that she was sexually active and female, as far as I can see.

I too find it amazing that things like Sollecito's ill-judged diary musings about the knife are held up by some people to be indicative of his guilt, since they are "ridiculous excuses with no foundation in fact" etc.

Well, of course they are ridiculous excuses. Sollecito had been told by the police that Meredith's DNA was on his kitchen knife, and asked how he might explain that one away. I actually think he probably was referring to Meredith as the one whom he hypothetically touched with the knife, rather than Amanda. But anyhow.....

At this point, we can form three different hypotheses. Firstly, if Sollecito was involved in the murder (and the kitchen knife was a murder weapon), he would know that the reason why Meredith's DNA was on the knife was that she had been stabbed with it. He might therefore have been "clutching at straws" to concoct an alternative explanation - however improbable - to explain how it got there.

Secondly, it's possible that Knox left Sollecito's apartment and took his kitchen knife with her to the murder house, all without his knowledge. He might therefore genuinely be unaware of the knife's role in the murder, but might perhaps be seeking to protect Knox in some way by imagining an improbable different scenario.

Thirdly, suppose that Sollecito had nothing to do with the murder, and neither (to the best of his knowledge) did Knox. Given that he'd been definitively told by the police that Meredith's DNA was on his kitchen knife, he had an internal conflict to resolve: how the heck did Meredith's DNA get on that knife? So he started musing about how that conceivably might have happened, since he was in no position - either practically or philosophically - to doubt or question the police's information.

My current belief is that the third hypothesis is the most likely. The context in which his statement was written (his general disbelief at the whole idea that he or Knox were involved in the murder), and the fact that it was written in a private diary rather than given as a direct response to the police, point me in that direction.

Comments welcome. Thank goodness we have a forum here where personal insults are not tolerated. Thank you, mods.

 

[LondonJohn]

How do you know it's a mistranslation? Are you fluent in Italian?



No, in context it's quite clear that Raffaele was referring to Meredith's hand.



One of those alternative interpretations makes sense: a desperate and pathetic attempt to explain away evidence which RS had good reason to believe might exist. It's only an unreasonable interpretation if you "know" with metaphysical certainty that AK & RS are innocent. Which is, itself, an unreasonable position to hold, especially on a skeptics' forum.


The best way to make sense of what they were told would be to always tell the truth.

Ermmmmmmm....what?! Can you explain further what you mean by this?

 

[RWVBWL]

I don't believe Charlie has put all the photos up yet. But this one gives a good indication of how reachable the window is by traversing from behind the planter.

​

It also looks like there was another nail or two on the left that recently got broken loose. Rudy would not have seen these nails while making the traverse in the dark so it would only be by chance that he would hit them with his feet while ascending.

Hi Dan O.,
Thanks for posting this photograph link again, for it made me want to ask something of the JREF group.
Seeing that man grasping ahold of the window ledge made me wonder if the same ledge was ever tested for fingerprints when the police investigation first got under way? If so, what was the result? Or did the police immediately discount the probability of someone actually climbing up there and just not dust the area? I do remember seeing an evidence marker there on the ledge before, but I do not ever recall reading if there were fingerprints found there or if the area was ever even tested.
Thanks for any replies,
RWVBWL

 

[Danceme]

How many times are we going to go over and over this one talking point based on a total mistranslation?

Kevin, just by you saying it is a total mistranslation doesn't make it true. I've read several translations by native Italian speakers who say he is referring to Meredith's hand. It is the only conclusion which makes sense given the context around the quote so I believe them, sorry.

I don't believe Charlie has put all the photos up yet. But this one gives a good indication of how reachable the window is by traversing from behind the planter.

​

It also looks like there was another nail or two on the left that recently got broken loose. Rudy would not have seen these nails while making the traverse in the dark so it would only be by chance that he would hit them with his feet while ascending.

Dan, when I look at the guy in the police t shirt standing on the porch in front of the planter I can tell that if he stood atop that planter and leaned way over to open the shutter he would fall. That photo doesn't convince me but perhaps Charlie has others.

 

[Dan O.]

Would you mind posting the photos of the scuffing and abrasions you refer to in this new theory of the break-in.

ETA: There is another photo of this wall (4th from the
last) here that you can see part of the scuff on the edge of the porch under the planter and the upper edge of the lower window casing that would offer a toehold for the lateral traversal.

http://www.injusticeinperugia.org/window.html

 

[LondonJohn]

There's a very interesting programme on right now here, on one of the satellite crime channels. It's the case of Peter Reilly, who was convicted of killing his own mother in the 1970s, when he was aged 18. He discovered her body, but was "persuaded" by the police that they had the goods on him, and that he was the perpetrator. Following lengthy interrogation (including Miranda warnings and refusal of legal counsel), he confessed to brutally stabbing and mutilating his mother, despite his constant refrain that he didn't remember a thing about committing the crime. The police suggested that he had attacked his mother in a subconscious rage, and that he had psychologically blanked out the event from his mind. They also said that if he confessed, they would get him treatment rather than punish him.

He spent many years in prison after his conviction, before an appeal (championed by the playwright Arthur Miller) revealed that the prosecution had hidden exculpatory evidence. Reilly was released, and almost certainly did not have any hand in the death of his mother.

http://www.truthinjustice.org/peter-reilly.htm

Much of the "confession" statement by Reilly (which, incidentally, was taped by the police) looks, sounds and feels almost identical to the Knox statements from the 6th November. Like Knox, Reilly signed a write up of his verbal confession, and, like Knox, he recanted the entire statement within days.

Incidentally, we have our very own true crime story playing out here right now. A guy named Raoul Moat, who apparently shot his ex-girlfriend and killed her new boyfriend, then shot a policeman, has been discovered by the police after being on the run for several days. He's now cornered by a river, and is holding a shotgun to his throat. Moat has most likely been living off the land while he's been on the run - maybe he had someone to help him when he went "into the forest".....

 

[RoseMontague]

If the intercepted phone conversation on Nov. 4 led the police to suspect a black man, why didn't they play the recording back in court or at least quote directly from it?

Good point, they may have misunderstood her whispering. And possibly then decided to pressure her about a black man until the moment of her coerced accusation.

 

[Charlie Wilkes]

One of those alternative interpretations makes sense: a desperate and pathetic attempt to explain away evidence which RS had good reason to believe might exist. It's only an unreasonable interpretation if you "know" with metaphysical certainty that AK & RS are innocent. Which is, itself, an unreasonable position to hold, especially on a skeptics' forum.

Raffaele lied in the hope that by providing an explanation for a given forensic result, he might secure his freedom. It was unwise, but it proves nothing with regard to his guilt. His reason for believing that such evidence existed was simply that the police told him about it.

As for skepticism, it only aids in understanding the truth if one is sufficiently well-informed about a subject to understand what is and is not plausible. In this case, I am among those making the claim that the authorities in Perugia have collaborated to frame two innocent people. Some who regard themselves as skeptics may view that claim as implausible. But to anyone who is well-informed about criminal investigations, it is entirely plausible because countless precedents exist.

The authorities have also put forth claims. They claim Amanda Knox participated in a brutal sexual homicide and left physical evidence everywhere except in the room where the crime took place. To some, that might seem plausible. But to one who is well-informed about criminal investigations, it is implausible to the point of being flatly impossible and without precedent.

 

[Fine]

There's a very interesting programme on right now here, on one of the satellite crime channels. It's the case of Peter Reilly, who was convicted of killing his own mother in the 1970s, when he was aged 18. He discovered her body, but was "persuaded" by the police that they had the goods on him, and that he was the perpetrator. Following lengthy interrogation (including Miranda warnings and refusal of legal counsel), he confessed to brutally stabbing and mutilating his mother, despite his constant refrain that he didn't remember a thing about committing the crime. The police suggested that he had attacked his mother in a subconscious rage, and that he had psychologically blanked out the event from his mind. They also said that if he confessed, they would get him treatment rather than punish him.

He spent many years in prison after his conviction, before an appeal (championed by the playwright Arthur Miller) revealed that the prosecution had hidden exculpatory evidence. Reilly was released, and almost certainly did not have any hand in the death of his mother.

http://www.truthinjustice.org/peter-reilly.htm

Much of the "confession" statement by Reilly (which, incidentally, was taped by the police) looks, sounds and feels almost identical to the Knox statements from the 6th November. Like Knox, Reilly signed a write up of his verbal confession, and, like Knox, he recanted the entire statement within days.
Incidentally, we have our very own true crime story playing out here right now. A guy named Raoul Moat, who apparently shot his ex-girlfriend and killed her new boyfriend, then shot a policeman, has been discovered by the police after being on the run for several days. He's now cornered by a river, and is holding a shotgun to his throat. Moat has most likely been living off the land while he's been on the run - maybe he had someone to help him when he went "into the forest".....

Well, LondonJohn, this is a pathetic case. As is usually the situation, however, when one makes a "false confession," this gentleman appears to have suffered from an underlying cognitive and/or emotional pathology. So, presumably, not parallel to the "confession" of Amanda.....

"Expert testimony from Dr. Herbert Spiegel suggested how Peter Reilly could have been led to confess, due to his difficulty of "integrating a concept of self." Reilly had been unable to distinguish between a statement and an assertion or a question, and could easily be led to accept as a fact something he knew nothing about." Peter Reilly

Does anyone know whether Amanda has been psychologically evaluated in prison, and whether such results figure in her appeal proceedings?

///

 

[Kestrel]

Raffaele lied in the hope that by providing an explanation for a given forensic result, he might secure his freedom. It was unwise, but it proves nothing with regard to his guilt. His reason for believing that such evidence existed was simply that the police told him about it.

As for skepticism, it only aids in understanding the truth if one is sufficiently well-informed about a subject to understand what is and is not plausible. In this case, I am among those making the claim that the authorities in Perugia have collaborated to frame two innocent people. Some who regard themselves as skeptics may view that claim as implausible. But to anyone who is well-informed about criminal investigations, it is entirely plausible because countless precedents exist.

The authorities have also put forth claims. They claim Amanda Knox participated in a brutal sexual homicide and left physical evidence everywhere except in the room where the crime took place. To some, that might seem plausible. But to one who is well-informed about criminal investigations, it is implausible to the point of being flatly impossible and without precedent.

The idea that two suspects managed to clean up forensic trace evidence pointing to them while leaving trace evidence pointing to a third suspect is also completely ludicrous.

 

[LondonJohn]

Hi Dan O.,
Thanks for posting this photograph link again, for it made me want to ask something of the JREF group.
Seeing that man grasping ahold of the window ledge made me wonder if the same ledge was ever tested for fingerprints when the police investigation first got under way? If so, what was the result? Or did the police immediately discount the probability of someone actually climbing up there and just not dust the area? I do remember seeing an evidence marker there on the ledge before, but I do not ever recall reading if there were fingerprints found there or if the area was ever even tested.
Thanks for any replies,
RWVBWL

Hey RW

Good to see you around! I think there was some cursory dusting of the window area and the rock for prints, but none were found. However, it's highly likely that anyone breaking and entering (particularly if it was premeditated rather than spontaneous) would be wearing gloves. And I suspect that Guede (if it was him) was wearing gloves.

I suspect that Guede wore gloves to break in (if indeed he broke in), then probably also was wearing them when he confronted Meredith (having removed them to go to the bathroom, but probably put them back on again when trying to make his escape.

I suspect, therefore, that he was wearing gloves during at least part of the restraining/stabbing phase. I suspect that he removed at least one glove in order to digitally assault Meredith (for reasons that are, I hope, obvious). He would also have probably had to remove at least one glove to rummage through Meredith's handbag, for similar reasons of increased dexterity and feel. This would help to explain why Guede's DNA was only found on the handbag and inside Meredith's genitals.

Incidentally, in this regard, one might argue that the lack of Knox/Sollecito's fingerprints or DNA in the murder room or on the victim (apart, of course, from the infamous bra clasp) might be attributed to a notion that they too were wearing gloves. However, this in itself would imply a clear element of premeditation, which has already been judged as implausible.

 

[Amazer]

Raffaele lied in the hope that by providing an explanation for a given forensic result, he might secure his freedom. It was unwise, but it proves nothing with regard to his guilt. His reason for believing that such evidence existed was simply that the police told him about it.

If you believe that then I have a bridge for sale.

As for skepticism, it only aids in understanding the truth if one is sufficiently well-informed about a subject to understand what is and is not plausible. In this case, I am among those making the claim that the authorities in Perugia have collaborated to frame two innocent people. Some who regard themselves as skeptics may view that claim as implausible. But to anyone who is well-informed about criminal investigations, it is entirely plausible because countless precedents exist.

Plausible.... perhaps. But instead of pointing at other cases, shouldn't you be providing evidence that what you claim actually happened in this case?

The authorities have also put forth claims. They claim Amanda Knox participated in a brutal sexual homicide and left physical evidence everywhere except in the room where the crime took place. To some, that might seem plausible. But to one who is well-informed about criminal investigations, it is implausible to the point of being flatly impossible and without precedent.

Evidently the judges of the court were convinced enough to convict AK and RS. I think it's safe to say that they are moderately well informed with regard to criminal investigations.

 

[LondonJohn]

I find it amusing that some people can't tell the difference between these two things:

1) Evidence containing DNA, which was collected in a proper and timely fashion, then stored in sealed, sterile containers for an indefinite number of years (even 30-40 years) before the DNA was analysed and identified.

2) Evidence containing DNA which was left at the crime scene, moved around on a dirty, dusty floor, placed within a pile of clothes, bags and other detritus, left in that condition for 47 days, then collected in an improper fashion and analysed.

Ironically, a failure to differentiate between these two things is truly asinine.....

 

[RoseMontague]

Raffaele lied in the hope that by providing an explanation for a given forensic result, he might secure his freedom. It was unwise, but it proves nothing with regard to his guilt. His reason for believing that such evidence existed was simply that the police told him about it.

Charlie,
I agree 100%. Both Amanda and Raffaele were backed into a corner and put into a position of having to explain something that essentially did not exist. The result of that is pure fantasy.

I was reading at TJMK earlier today and I noticed that Mignini was interviewed and he stated the most important pieces of evidence were the knife, the bra clasp, and the mixed blood trace in the bathroom. So the three cornerstones of that mountain of evidence are rotten to the core (in my opinion) and the mountain is about to collapse.

During a brief visit to another board I was told that the lies of Amanda and Raffaele were very strong indicators of guilt. It seems to me that when the problems with these 3 pieces of evidence are pointed out as well as significant indications of unreliable testimony of the two witnesses that seem to contradict the alibi of RS and AK, they always fall back on the they lied therefore they are guilty theme.

Reading the Massei motivation was eye-opening to me in that a sense of fairness seemingly was thrown out the window. Comparing that report to the appeal documents makes it plain that both sides of the argument were not given consideration. They did not receive a fair judgment from the court.

 

[Danceme]

Raffaele lied in the hope that by providing an explanation for a given forensic result, he might secure his freedom. It was unwise, but it proves nothing with regard to his guilt. His reason for believing that such evidence existed was simply that the police told him about it.

/QUOTE]

Charlie, I have to say your responses are most often very reasonable. I believe Rafaelle lied too and there is no translation misunderstanding about whose hand he was referring to in his story.
I also agree it does not prove his guilt but I really find it a stretch to think an intelligent 24 year old man would even write something so incriminating and obviously false if he was completely innocent of any wrongdoing. I would think, in writing in his own personal journal, away from the police station, an innocent man would vehemently deny this so-called evidence and continue to avow it simply wasn't possible and that there must be a huge mistake or contamination at the lab. He wrote the story as if he was recounting an incident that really happened. There was no conjecture.

 

[Matthew Best]

Raffaele lied in the hope that by providing an explanation for a given forensic result, he might secure his freedom. It was unwise, but it proves nothing with regard to his guilt.

This is how I saw the quote. I believe I said something to this effect in the last thread and Mr The Donkey replied "Exactly!!!" - I don't think he quite understood what I was getting at (probably my fault).

It does seem that those who believe in Knox & Sollecito's guilt put a comparatively large amount of weight in their statements (whether "confessions", "accusations" or "lies") while those who don't tend to disregard them and put more weight on other evidence (or lack of it).

 

[katy_did]

Well, LondonJohn, this is a pathetic case. As is usually the situation, however, when one makes a "false confession," this gentleman appears to have suffered from an underlying cognitive and/or emotional pathology. So, presumably, not parallel to the "confession" of Amanda.....

"Expert testimony from Dr. Herbert Spiegel suggested how Peter Reilly could have been led to confess, due to his difficulty of "integrating a concept of self." Reilly had been unable to distinguish between a statement and an assertion or a question, and could easily be led to accept as a fact something he knew nothing about." Peter Reilly

Does anyone know whether Amanda has been psychologically evaluated in prison, and whether such results figure in her appeal proceedings?

///

Apparently although it used to be thought that false confessions were only made by people with learning difficulties, psychological problems and so on, in fact various personality characteristics are more important (high trust in authority, suggestibility) and also situational factors (a high pressure interrogation late at night, being interviewed in a foreign language, unscrupulous techniques used by the investigators).

"It used to be thought that people only made false confessions if they were mentally defective or suffering from severe learning disabilities," explains Gudjonsson. "But that's not the case. Most of the vulnerabilities have nothing to do with intelligence. In the cases I looked at, the people were pretty ordinary and their intellectual functioning wasn't of much relevance. Personality characteristics are more significant."

A few more interesting quotes from the same article:

There are now far better safeguards for suspects in police custody - of which the tape-recording of interviews is the most vital - and far more awareness by police forces of what can go wrong. (...)

A police officer in Canada said to me, 'We're 100% sure in [this] confession. We know when people are telling the truth or not, we can tell by the non-verbal signs.' In that case, DNA evidence completely exonerated the man and pointed to someone else."

That last one sounds oddly familiar...

 

[Kestrel]

As for skepticism, it only aids in understanding the truth if one is sufficiently well-informed about a subject to understand what is and is not plausible. In this case, I am among those making the claim that the authorities in Perugia have collaborated to frame two innocent people. Some who regard themselves as skeptics may view that claim as implausible. But to anyone who is well-informed about criminal investigations, it is entirely plausible because countless precedents exist.

It helps to remember that while prosecutors, police and crime lab technicians are presumed to be working to ensure justice, their actual motivation is often winning the case to please their boss. And when your boss is certain that the suspect is guilty, why not shade the truth to make sure a guilty person goes to jail?