Continuation - Discussion of the Amanda Knox case

[Mary_H]

So Amanda's accusation should have not been taken seriously by the police?

Amanda's accusation of Patrick was forced by the police. In her court testimony, she described how they did it.

Do you really think that the Perugia police just run wild, beat up witnesses and concoct evidence?

Not as a general rule. See my post 5128 for what I think happened in this case.

You're saying that they forced Amanda to accuse Patrick because they thought she was guilty?

They forced Amanda to accuse Patrick because they were instructed that the text messages between Amanda and Patrick were evidence of the crime.

 

[tsig]

Amanda's accusation of Patrick was forced by the police. In her court testimony, she described how they did it.




Not as a general rule. See my post 5128 for what I think happened in this case.




They forced Amanda to accuse Patrick because they were instructed that the text messages between Amanda and Patrick were evidence of the crime.

So Amanda was just putty in the hands of the police who molded her into any form they wanted? Then they forced her into accusing Patrick even though they really wanted to convict Amanda.

 

[Dan O.]

They forced Amanda to accuse Patrick because they were instructed that the text messages between Amanda and Patrick were evidence of the crime.

Many pages Ago in a thread far far away; Fiona posted a quote from the testimony of one of the interrogators that said the police had the text of Patrick's message and showed it to Amanda asking "Did you see this text? Did you respond?"

It seems the police already had a script for the interrogation that included Patrick from the start.

 

[Mary_H]

So Amanda was just putty in the hands of the police who molded her into any form they wanted? Then they forced her into accusing Patrick even though they really wanted to convict Amanda.

Yes, she was putty in their hands. We've gone over this like a million times, with dozens of citations. Why do you think the concept of defense lawyers was ever invented? Are you going to deny that coercion takes place in this world, under circumstance much less ripe for it than Amanda's interrogation?

What you're asking doesn't follow from what I wrote -- I didn't say anything about the police really wanting to convict Amanda and not Patrick. They were just told to get her in prison before her mother arrived.

 

[Chris C]

Yes I'm seriously asking you to prove that she retracted her accusation.

Transcript of Amanda Knox's handwritten statement to police on the evening of November 6, the day she was arrested:

This is very strange, I know, but really what happened is as confusing to me as it is to everyone else. I have been told there is hard evidence saying that I was at the place of the murder of my friend when it happened. This, I want to confirm, is something that to me, if asked a few days ago, would be impossible.

I know that Raffaele has placed evidence against me, saying that I was not with him on the night of Meredith's murder, but let me tell you this. In my mind there are things I remember and things that are confused. My account of this story goes as follows, despite the evidence stacked against me:

On Thursday November 1 I saw Meredith the last time at my house when she left around 3 or 4 in the afternoon. Raffaele was with me at the time. We, Raffaele and I, stayed at my house for a little while longer and around 5 in the evening we left to watch the movie Amelie at his house. After the movie I received a message from Patrik [sic], for whom I work at the pub "Le Chic". He told me in this message that it wasn't necessary for me to come into work for the evening because there was no one at my work.
{snip}

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

Lenghthy cut-and-paste trimmed. Please do not paste large amounts of text that is available from other sitesl, as per Rule 4. Paste a small amount and link the rest.

Replying to this modbox in thread will be off topic  Posted By: Tricky

Might have been longer than a few hours, but it was still the same day. Unless you physically want me to go to Perugia and pick up the note and hand deliver it to you. This will have to do. If you dont feel this is a retraction to her statements she gave the interrogators early that morning then our definition of retraction in this matter differs greatly.

 

[Mary_H]

Many pages Ago in a thread far far away; Fiona posted a quote from the testimony of one of the interrogators that said the police had the text of Patrick's message and showed it to Amanda asking "Did you see this text? Did you respond?"

It seems the police already had a script for the interrogation that included Patrick from the start.

This is why we should be suspicious about why the actual phone records and the date they were obtained don't appear in the Motivations. That information would offer proof of what we believe -- that Amanda and Raffaele were suspects, not witnesses, when they were brought in for their interrogations.

It would also prove that the police suspected Patrick but did not investigate him before engineering his extraordinary arrest.

 

[Antony]

(msg #5122, p129)

1. Evidence that the police were "desperate"?

The fact that they were still hunting for the first piece of evidence against Raffaele more than 6 weeks after the crime is a clear indication that they were desperate. Without physical evidence their case would fall apart.

2. It's my understanding, but I don't have a cite for it, that the police wanted to go back to the apartment much earlier but the defense was opposed to it, so they didn't.

Sorry, this is ridiculous. We have police video showing their activity in the apartment in the interim period. The same videos show how the bra clasp was moved from its original position and ultimately found in a pile of debris. Nobody but the police would have had access to the room in the meantime.

3. I don't know why they didn't test the stain then, do you?

Alt+F4, have you heard of the expression "rhetorical question"? My "why would they not have done so?" from #5121 is an example. I go on to offer my answer in the next paragraph, so there is no need for your question.

How would they know that?

Again, my answer is in the next sentence. To enlarge, they needed evidence against Raffaele, so the suspected semen stain on the pillow would only be of use to them if it was his. But those directing the investigation knew probably from the beginning, and certainly by 6 weeks later, that in reality Raffaele had no involvement whatsoever. So they had nothing to gain from doing the test.

 

[Antony]

(msg #5123)

Contrary to your claim there was plenty to suggest the break in was staged. The details have been posted many times.

The only "detail" I have seen is the report that there was broken glass on top of Filomena's clothes. This is taken by the pro-guilt faction as proof that the clothes were scattered on the floor before the pane was broken. It proves no such thing, as somebody ransacking the room would have moved shards of glass around while doing so.

In fact, the details have indeed been posted on this forum, including the fact that there was glass on the floor under the clothes. That rather puts the factor of the clothes, and the selective use of it by the pro-guilt faction, into context.

...

They didn't ignore the break in. As far as they could ascertain there was no break in, just a simulation made to look like a break in. This is how they saw it and so this is how they reported it. You may not agree but it is what it is.

But they didn't report it, at least not at first. In the news article I referred to, there was no mention made of either a break-in or a simulated break-in - just that it was believed that Meredith knew her killer(s) because she had apparently let him or them into the flat.

The faking of the break-in is an article of faith on the pro-guilt side, along with the fictitious clean-up. But they don't make sense; if Amanda and Raffaele were allegedly trying to blame Guede alone, then why would they keep quiet about his participation all the time he was on the run?

According to the pro-guilt narrative, they cleaned up their own traces and faked a break-in, leaving just Guede's presumably to get him convicted, but then Amanda covered for him by allegedly naming somebody entirely innocent. This is what doesn't make sense.

The truth is that they had no knowledge of Guede's role until it was public revealed, because they weren't there.

No, I've tried but no, none at all. Can you? if so please elaborate

This says more about you than it does about the case.

 

[quadraginta]

This is why we should be suspicious about why the actual phone records and the date they were obtained don't appear in the Motivations. That information would offer proof of what we believe -- that Amanda and Raffaele were suspects, not witnesses, when they were brought in for their interrogations.

It would also prove that the police suspected Patrick but did not investigate him before engineering his extraordinary arrest.

Why do we have to be suspicious? Is the evidence which was presented in court and used as the basis of that Motivation secret? Is it unavailable to the people of either side of the case who are actually working on it?

The Motivations document is a summary. If it were a complete compilation of every item that was part of the case it would be somewhat longer.

 

[Amazer]

Take a closer look at the door with the crime scene tape. You may need to enhance the shadows.

eta: Here is a reference picture with the new tenant for orientation.

I honestly don't get what you are driving at... can you please spell it out.

 

[Charlie Wilkes]

So Amanda's accusation should have not been taken seriously by the police?

They didn't believe her when she said she spent the night at Raffaele's place, so why should they believe her when she accused Lumumba?

And why not simply bring Lumumba in for questioning? They could have put him under surveillance if they thought he was dangerous.

Instead they had a press conference... "We solved the crime! It was a sex game turned violent!"

Very dumb.

 

[Charlie Wilkes]

The only "detail" I have seen is the report that there was broken glass on top of Filomena's clothes. This is taken by the pro-guilt faction as proof that the clothes were scattered on the floor before the pane was broken. It proves no such thing, as somebody ransacking the room would have moved shards of glass around while doing so.

In fact, the details have indeed been posted on this forum, including the fact that there was glass on the floor under the clothes. That rather puts the factor of the clothes, and the selective use of it by the pro-guilt faction, into context.

Most of the "evidence" is based on what's not there... no footprints at the base of the wall, no mud on the wall, the nail on the wall wasn't bent. Massei constructs a straw man in which Guede would have had to climb the wall twice, first to open the shutters, then, after pitching the rock, to climb up through the window. He doesn't mention the concrete planter adjacent to the window, or the overhanging roof.

 

[Kestrel]

I honestly don't get what you are driving at... can you please spell it out.

I made some adjustments to the exposure in the door photo.

 

[Kevin_Lowe]

Most of the "evidence" is based on what's not there... no footprints at the base of the wall, no mud on the wall, the nail on the wall wasn't bent. Massei constructs a straw man in which Guede would have had to climb the wall twice, first to open the shutters, then, after pitching the rock, to climb up through the window. He doesn't mention the concrete planter adjacent to the window, or the overhanging roof.

Indeed. The whole "he couldn't have come in by the window" story comes down to the police asserting that he couldn't possibly have come in by the window.

I suspect this is why Michael's spin on this story is to say "Look, the police aren't on trial. They don't have to justify themselves, they are the police, we can have absolute faith in their pronouncements". It's because there is literally nothing more than an act of faith holding this premise up. If you don't believe the word of the police just because it is the word of the police, you have no reason to believe it would be in any way unlikely or impossible for Guede to have got in that way without leaving any particular evidence.

 

[Chris C]

Indeed. The whole "he couldn't have come in by the window" story comes down to the police asserting that he couldn't possibly have come in by the window.

I suspect this is why Michael's spin on this story is to say "Look, the police aren't on trial. They don't have to justify themselves, they are the police, we can have absolute faith in their pronouncements". It's because there is literally nothing more than an act of faith holding this premise up. If you don't believe the word of the police just because it is the word of the police, you have no reason to believe it would be in any way unlikely or impossible for Guede to have got in that way without leaving any particular evidence.

I can't remember where i read it. But wasn't there multiple break ins through that window after the crime so people could prove it could be done.

 

[Alt+F4]

We have already been over this. The appeal team have cited this evidence, and it's not a matter of opinion or fuzzy personal interpretation whether or not Spotlight recorded Naruto being opened at 21:26. It's either true or it's false, and lawyers very rarely if ever make blatantly false claims of fact in court documents which it would be trivial for the opposing team to expose.

I do not know what definition of evidence you are using where a fact is not evidence until someone articulates it within the confines of a courtroom. By my definition, evidence is any relevant fact about the case.

Wow. Just wow. If you want to use the term evidence in it's broadest sense, that it's any relevant fact about the case (without a burden of proof) then you would have to agree there is motive here. After all, Patrick said Amanda was jealous of Meredith, that is a relevant fact about the case? So you must agree, right?

As for you asseration that "lawyers very rarely if ever make blatantly false claims of fact in court documents" then you must believe everything Patrick's lawyers said about Amanda in his lawsuit against her. And of course you must accept without question everything Meredith's family lawyer has said about Amanda. After all, lawyers rarely get it wrong.

 

[Kevin_Lowe]

I can't remember where i read it. But wasn't there multiple break ins through that window after the crime so people could prove it could be done.

I've never heard that before. It would be funny if it were true, but that doesn't mean it is true. I'd hate to live there if was.

 

[Alt+F4]

I think I'm correct on this point. However, wasn't knox/sollecito both held for nearly a year using some "flight of the country law" before being charged so they could find evidence against them.

I have never heard of "flight of the county law". What is it?

 

[Chris C]

I have never heard of "flight of the county law". What is it?

You can see in this article dated october 27 2008 that knox was finally being charged. Just like in America unless a person releases their rights Italians have a right to a speedy trial. Knox and Sollecito where both held for over 11 months before being charged. However, they used some law to hold Knox and Sollecito both without charging them. I think I read somewhere in the sollecito google translation of his appeal where he is asking for his conviction overturned on the grounds that his rights to a speedy trial where violated. Since the law that Mignini used to hold him was misinterpreted and it didn't apply to him.

http://www.newsweek.com/2008/10/27/judgment-day.html

 

[Kevin_Lowe]

Wow. Just wow. If you want to use the term evidence in it's broadest sense, that it's any relevant fact about the case (without a burden of proof) then you would have to agree there is motive here. After all, Patrick said Amanda was jealous of Meredith, that is a relevant fact about the case? So you must agree, right?

I never said anything like that.

Your own definition of evidence ("it's not evidence unless it's been presented in a courtroom") was manifestly ludicrous. It looks like you are trying to attribute an equally ludicrous definition of evidence to me ("anything anyone ever says is evidence and it's all equally good") to try to make your definition look better by comparison.

I find it hard to believe you've hung around the JREF forums this long without understanding what we usually mean by "evidence" around here. It's not limited to what's presented in a court. It's limited to what we can back up based on objective fact and properly conducted investigation and observation.

As for you asseration that "lawyers very rarely if ever make blatantly false claims of fact in court documents" then you must believe everything Patrick's lawyers said about Amanda in his lawsuit against her. And of course you must accept without question everything Meredith's family lawyer has said about Amanda. After all, lawyers rarely get it wrong.

Look, if you think Raffaele's defence team are lying why not just come out and say it?

If they're lying they will be shown to have been lying the second they get into court, so if that's what you think and you are right then you are certain to be vindicated. Wouldn't that be fun, having called it in advance and then being proved correct?

Just up and say it, if that's what you think. "I think Raffaele's team are lying about the Spotlight metadata. I think the minute the prosecution team checks the original disk image of Raffaele's hard drive they will be caught and censured".

I do not think any rational person thinks that this is likely, however. As such I am simply going to assume from hereon in unless I hear otherwise from an equally relevant source that the files on Raffaele's computer do show that a Naruto cartoon file was opened at 21:26 on the night of the murder. You can hold whatever opinion you like about the matter, but unless you have some evidence to present beyond what you have already offered I do not think it likely that I will be persuaded to adopt your opinion.