Continuation - Discussion of the Amanda Knox case

[Chris C]

Maybe. So why didn't she report it right away? Maybe because it didn't happen. Either way, it could be a lie or it could be true. You aren't really proving it one way or another, theorizing could go both ways. You can find reasons for why she would defend Knox or why she wouldn't. For me to believe that an interrogator would get charged for telling the truth about police abuse, I would have to believe that the majority of the justice system in Perugia is evil and corrupt. I dont believe that, obviously you do.

No I believe in their eyes the slap to the head was nothing more than an attempt to get her attention to respond to questions. I believe physical harm wasn't what they where trying to get her to believe. However, knox took the slap differently. You add in the other things, such as sleep deprivation, late night, multiple italian speaking interrogators, threatening her with 30 years in jail, the whole food and water issue, refusal to use the bathroom, denial of an attorney, lieing to her telling her they got proof, and you can see where a slap in the back of the head can suddenly mean something different to Knox. Just like sexual harrassment, the person might not intend to sexual harrass someone, but actions of an individual can be perceived as harrassment. The same situation applys to the interrogation. How many of the other claims Knox made against the interrogators was she charged with slander for? Of course why would knox say she was beaten in interrogation if it wasn't true. Wouldn't knox believe the interrogation was being taped and recorded. The defense has asked for the tapes to be turned over, so the defense believes it was recorded.

 

[Solange305]

I see. I keep hearing conflicting accounts of how long she was really interrogated for. Also, about the whole food thing, I heard they did give her food and drink, although I know she claims it was only after she told them what they wanted to hear. Are you saying there might be tapes out there of the interrogation?

Also, did Raffaele say something about "everything I said before was a load of rubbish", or something to that effect when being questioned? Is he now denying he said that?

Edit: Also, since there was some mention of the pictures on PMF (thank for reminding me LondonJohn), having seen the picture of the second floor window, do you guys really believe Rudy broke in through there? I saw someone mention that the breakin was not staged, that is what led me to conclude that the assumption is he actually came in through that high window?

 

[RWVBWL]

Very strange. Are you insinuating that means she is innocent? You could say the same about a lot of murders involving a lot of suspects who seemed perfectly normal, etc. I agree it's strange, but I also think it's strange to believe that a police force, judges, dna experts and jury, who up until this case were all seemingly normal citizens, probably wrapping presents for their friends, raising their kids, etc., decided to take the life of an obviously innocent girl and put her in prison for life. It goes both ways my friend, I hope you realize that

_________________________________________________________________

Hi Solange305,
Thanks for the reply.
No, the fact that I wrote of Amanda Knox wrapping presents does not mean I think she is innocent. That has come from a few years of following this strange, brutal murder case.

However, in response to what you wrote above, I bet ALL of those police officers and investigators you mentioned would probably like to keep their jobs too, you know, to buy presents for their friends, support their kids and families, be able to afford to go out on the town and listen to some music when Rudy Guede's defense attorney celebrated his 50th birthday, you know, stuff like that...

Why get the boss mad and take a chance on getting fired, like what seems to have happened with Dr Luca Lalli, the pathologist in the case?
Hmmm...
RWVBWL

 

[Solange305]

Yes, I see your point, point taken. I wasn't aware of Dr. Lalli, I will look into that, thanks for pointing it out to me...

 

[RWVBWL]

Yes, I see your point, point taken. I wasn't aware of Dr. Lalli, I will look into that, thanks for pointing it out to me...

Hi Solange305,
I just wanted to extend a welcome hello to you, and say that I am glad to have your input here also...

I too had originally thought that Amanda Knox was guilty, for why would the police have even arrested her if she was not involved?

Since I like to read, I followed this case quite a bit after it happened.
Of special note was watching Frank Sfarzo of Perugia Shock, who went to almost ALL of the court hearings of the 3, (including the 11 month trial of AK and RS, even though they were only a day or two a week and the summer was closed), change his feelings of guilt regarding Amanda Knox's And Raffaele Sollecito involvement in this murder.

If you have the time, start reading Perugai Shock from the beginning, it is an eye-opener.
PMF, of which you are a member of, TJ4MK, InjusticeinPerugia, Perugia Shock, and here on JREF are where I check in for info, plus the links they provide. Learn more and share your input, here on JREF we usually get along, even if we differ in the interpretation of the evidence and the court's finding of guilt...

Anyways, I'm beach-bound here in Los Angeles,
have a good rest of your day...
RWVBWL

 

[Chris C]

I see. I keep hearing conflicting accounts of how long she was really interrogated for. Also, about the whole food thing, I heard they did give her food and drink, although I know she claims it was only after she told them what they wanted to hear. Are you saying there might be tapes out there of the interrogation?

Also, did Raffaele say something about "everything I said before was a load of rubbish", or something to that effect when being questioned? Is he now denying he said that?

Edit: Also, since there was some mention of the pictures on PMF (thank for reminding me LondonJohn), having seen the picture of the second floor window, do you guys really believe Rudy broke in through there? I saw someone mention that the breakin was not staged, that is what led me to conclude that the assumption is he actually came in through that high window?

See, what you got to ask yourself is what does the evidence point to. The prosecution has convicted 2 people by trying to hide the evidence. They pull this magic number out of a gigantic ToD and say this is when she died. Exactly at this time. Any evidence that the defense gives to suggest something differently they dump garbage science and unfounded theories on to try and disprove or muddy it.

Yet in the interrogation they ask where is your proof they hit you. So you have to ask yourself, what does the evidence point to.

Did or did they not tape the interrogation? The prosecution, taped the inteviews of everyone but Knox, Sollecito, and Patrick. They had surveillance on them before the interrogation, they had copies of phone records. Why would the 3 murder suspects, Knox and Sollecito where suspects well before the interrogations that night, not have their interrogations taped. They taped everyone else. Mignini wiretapped tons of people even illegally wiretapped people.
If you believe they taped it, then you have to wonder why wouldn't they release interview tapes of a confession they say she gave freely without abuse?

If you believe they didn't tape it, then you have to wonder how incompetent the prosecution and interrogators are. You would then have reason to question any evidence the presented.

What does the evidence point to. They are only filing slander charges against the slap. Why wouldn't you file charges against the other claims. Some of them are bigger rights violations than a tap on the back of the head. The only reason to file slander on the slap and none of the others is there is proof of the others. So you make an issue out of the slap to hide the other accusations.

 

[Katody Matrass]

Just finished reading this set of articles at Injustice in Perugia and found them very interesting: "Ron Hendry is a retired Forensic Engineer (aka Accident Reconstructionist) with 28 years of experience at evaluating and reconstructing serious to fatal incidents based on the physical evidence. Mr. Hendry is a degreed Mechanical Engineer who held a Professional Engineering License during his consulting career. His body of work was primarily with regard civil litigation matters. However, his work has required him to interact extensively with police and review their reports, interview witnesses, review autopsy reports, and review statements and depositions of witnesses and experts. Ron has extensive experience in evaluating incidents from scene photos and witness testimony in cases where the physical evidence was no longer around. In several instances, Ron has evaluated injuries of those involved to ascertain how they occurred.

Ron has written a series of articles for Injustice in Perugia. Four of the articles are now available. Ron's entire series will be added shortly."

Ron Hendry takes a professional look at the whole staged break-in theory and finds it less than believable.

Thanks for pointing it out, el buscador!
Fascinating read! Just finished reading the 4 parts about the break-in. His observations are excellent. I would never notice that the TV is moved, and how it have swung that whole top heavy wardrobe.

http://injusticeinperugia.org/RonHendryindex2.html

 

[Katody Matrass]

In addition to former FBI agent Steve Moore's many recent TV and radio appearances, today we have an editorial by Michael Scadron, a former Department of Justice lawyer, published in the Christian Science Monitor:

http://www.csmonitor.com/Commentary...he-Italian-witch-hunt-Amanda-Knox-is-innocent

Thanks for the link, Mary!

The Article hits Mignini hard. Will he sue again?

 

[Chris_Halkides]

why test or discuss the stain

An attorney’s job is to provide the best possible representation for their client. No matter how strongly a defense attorney believes in a client’s innocence he/she would not try to introduce into evidence something that (a) would not help their client; but (b) could prove the client’s participation in the crime (no matter how unlikely they believe that to be).

Jungle Jim.

Now I see your point. I think it is helpful to consider first what ILE did at the time and them to consider the appeal. For ILE not to test the stain while they were gathering evidence in a murder/sexual assault case is extremely mystifying. I suspect that Raffaele’s appeal mentions it partly to highlight how incomplete this investigation has been (no reference footprints from Laura or Filomena, for example). As another poster indicated, if it is Rudy’s semen, then it discredits anything he said that was used against Raffaele. This is a very good point, IMO.

There is one extra reason for us to discuss this at JREF. As Sherlock Holmes implied, there are doubtless pro-guilt posters who think that pro-innocence posters will never give up their belief that AK and RS are innocent. The putative semen stain is a good counterexample. I, for one, would totally rethink the case if it were RS’s, and I believe that LondonJohn said roughly the same thing.

 

[katy_did]

I've been lurking here for most of this thread. If Amanda's appeal fails will those who believe her innocent change their minds, or will she always be innocent in your eyes?

I'm curious, are you suggesting this is something that should be a general principle when it comes to guilty verdicts which are confirmed on appeal (i.e. that people should shut up and accept the court's verdict is correct?). I think there's certainly a strong argument to be made that if a person is acquitted, he or she should be considered innocent by all reasonable people: it goes to whether or not you believe in the presumption of innocence, and the principle that it's better to have one guilty person go free than one innocent person be convicted. Continuing to treat someone as if they're guilty after they've been acquitted means rejecting those principles.

But in a sense for those same principles, as well as for the simple fact that miscarriages of justice happen, I disagree that a Court's verdict (whether at the original trial or on appeal) should be accepted unthinkingly and uncritically. In fact that seems like a bit of an odd position to take on a skeptic's forum, to say the least. Here's a well-known comment made by the judge during the appeal in the Birmingham Six case:

The longer this case has gone on, the more convinced this court has become that the verdict of the jury was correct.

They spent a further four years in jail before their convictions were quashed. Using your logic, should people have shut up and let them serve out their sentence?

 

[katy_did]

There is one extra reason for us to discuss this at JREF. As Sherlock Holmes implied, there are doubtless pro-guilt posters who think that pro-innocence posters will never give up their belief that AK and RS are innocent. The putative semen stain is a good counterexample. I, for one, would totally rethink the case if it were RS’s, and I believe that LondonJohn said roughly the same thing.

Absolutely. My opinion on the case would change completely if it turned out the semen stain were Raffaele's. I think the evidence as it stands is dubious and highly flawed. If more convincing evidence emerges, great; it would mean innocent people aren't spending years of their lives in jail for something they didn't do, which has to be good, right?

 

[Charlie Wilkes]

I had Massei assigning the clean-up to Amanda, not Raffaele.

But in any case, how would cleaning those have disturbed Rudy's prints when Rudy's were between Meredith's room and the front door and Raffaele's would have been between Meredith's room and the little bathroom...totally the opposite direction? I don't see your argument.

Take a look at the diagram in this article:

http://knoxarchives.blogspot.com/2009/11/comodi-asks-for-common-sense-posted-by.html

Rep. 3 is one of Guede's shoe prints, and rep. L9 is the luminol footprint oriented toward Meredith's door. Both are roughly in the path between the blood on the floor in Meredith's room and the small bathroom. So are one or more of the shoe prints inside Merediths' room.

Do you think Raffaele stepped in blood with his bare foot in Meredith's room, walked into the bathroom and left the print on the mat, after which he (or Amanda) cleaned the prints on the tile floor without disturbing Rudy's shoe print, but left the mat in plain sight?

 

[tronic]

Can anybody here explain why Sollecito stated in his diary, upon hearing that Guede had been picked up that he was worried Guede would "invent strange things" (about himself) when he and his lawyers stated that he didn't know of, or had ever met Guede.

Raffale Sollecito Diary


November 20, 2007

The real murderer of this incredible story was finally caught today. He is a 22 year old Ivorian [and] they found him in Germany. I saw father happy and smiling, but I am not 100% calm at the moment because I fear that he might invent strange things .

Bongiorno (Sollecito defence): "The prosecution says this was a sex crime that evolved out of a party, but we will prove the crime scene was not a party scene. There were no empty glasses, no wine, no music. We will also show that Raffaele did not know Rudy Guede, and that the first time he saw him was in court."

 

[Malkmus]

Of course why would knox say she was beaten in interrogation if it wasn't true. Wouldn't knox believe the interrogation was being taped and recorded. The defense has asked for the tapes to be turned over, so the defense believes it was recorded.

Great point.

 

[christianahannah]

Jungle Jim.

Now I see your point. I think it is helpful to consider first what ILE did at the time and them to consider the appeal. For ILE not to test the stain while they were gathering evidence in a murder/sexual assault case is extremely mystifying. I suspect that Raffaele’s appeal mentions it partly to highlight how incomplete this investigation has been (no reference footprints from Laura or Filomena, for example). As another poster indicated, if it is Rudy’s semen, then it discredits anything he said that was used against Raffaele. This is a very good point, IMO.

There is one extra reason for us to discuss this at JREF. As Sherlock Holmes implied, there are doubtless pro-guilt posters who think that pro-innocence posters will never give up their belief that AK and RS are innocent. The putative semen stain is a good counterexample. I, for one, would totally rethink the case if it were RS’s, and I believe that LondonJohn said roughly the same thing.

I don't have the motivations here at the present time, however, I thought that the reason the pillowcase was not tested had to do with preserving the evidence of the partial shoeprint made on the case/stain. That reason was then followed up with even if the stain was tested it could not be dated (which, of course, is true with all DNA evidence).

I would hope on appeal that the defense's request for the stain to be tested would be granted since there was no conclusion drawn by the Court as to the shoeprint on the pillowcase. I see no reason for it not to be tested.

I wasn't aware that Rudy had testified to anything against Raffaele. I thought he had kept quiet during his trial.

 

[Malkmus]

For me to believe that an interrogator would get charged for telling the truth about police abuse, I would have to believe that the majority of the justice system in Perugia is evil and corrupt. I dont believe that, obviously you do.

I see nothing strange about none of the police coming clean about any sort of brutality. Expecting this of any of them is to expect them to essentially become a whistleblower, someone who basically rats out their co-workers - people they work with, eat with and socialize with everyday. It's not as easy as just coming out and saying "yeah, what Amanda says is true", because they would be opening Pandora's box for them.

 

[christianahannah]

See, what you got to ask yourself is what does the evidence point to. The prosecution has convicted 2 people by trying to hide the evidence. They pull this magic number out of a gigantic ToD and say this is when she died. Exactly at this time. Any evidence that the defense gives to suggest something differently they dump garbage science and unfounded theories on to try and disprove or muddy it.

Yet in the interrogation they ask where is your proof they hit you. So you have to ask yourself, what does the evidence point to.

Did or did they not tape the interrogation? The prosecution, taped the inteviews of everyone but Knox, Sollecito, and Patrick. They had surveillance on them before the interrogation, they had copies of phone records. Why would the 3 murder suspects, Knox and Sollecito where suspects well before the interrogations that night, not have their interrogations taped. They taped everyone else. Mignini wiretapped tons of people even illegally wiretapped people.
If you believe they taped it, then you have to wonder why wouldn't they release interview tapes of a confession they say she gave freely without abuse?

If you believe they didn't tape it, then you have to wonder how incompetent the prosecution and interrogators are. You would then have reason to question any evidence the presented.

What does the evidence point to. They are only filing slander charges against the slap. Why wouldn't you file charges against the other claims. Some of them are bigger rights violations than a tap on the back of the head. The only reason to file slander on the slap and none of the others is there is proof of the others. So you make an issue out of the slap to hide the other accusations.

Do you have a list of who was taped in interviews? Were these witness interviews? And do you know if Rudy was taped?

 

[katy_did]

Can anybody here explain why Sollecito stated in his diary, upon hearing that Guede had been picked up that he was worried Guede would "invent strange things" (about himself) when he and his lawyers stated that he didn't know of, or had ever met Guede.

Raffale Sollecito Diary


November 20, 2007

The real murderer of this incredible story was finally caught today. He is a 22 year old Ivorian [and] they found him in Germany. I saw father happy and smiling, but I am not 100% calm at the moment because I fear that he might invent strange things .

Bongiorno (Sollecito defence): "The prosecution says this was a sex crime that evolved out of a party, but we will prove the crime scene was not a party scene. There were no empty glasses, no wine, no music. We will also show that Raffaele did not know Rudy Guede, and that the first time he saw him was in court."

Could it be that he assumed the real murderer would've been following the case in the media, that he would certainly have been aware that three people had been arrested, and that he might see a convenient way to try and exonerate himself by blaming the people the police thought had done it?

This is yet another 'suspicious' fact for which there are straightforward explanations, if you don't approach it assuming it shows evidence of guilt. It's a bit like Massei reasoning that Amanda and Raffaele staying away from Meredith's door when it was broken down is "only explicable" if they already knew she had been murdered. Yes, there really is no other possible explanation for that, none whatsoever...

 

[Malkmus]

You mean, what you subjectively assigned to the police as being lies.

All that talks about is what the newspapers said, not what the police said.

Batistelli lied in court. There's no reason for Luca to have lied about what he saw. The police lied when they wrote Amanda's statement saying the text to Patrick was a plan to meet up later. That was their mistranslation. Not Amanda's, it would have made no sense for her to misunderstand her own text message. They lied to her about having hard evidence placing her at the cottage. They lied about having a match between Raf's shoe and Guede's print. These aren't media fabrications.

 

[Malkmus]

Lucky for Amanda she was dealt with by the Italian police. This is how they deal with people in Seattle http://www.giornalettismo.com/archives/68008/seattle-poliziotto-picchia-ragazzina/

Fulcanelli, stop with the straw man that those on the innocent side think brutality only happens in Italy. On top of that, your above correlation was already made by Frank on Perugisshock a long time ago, so we're quite aware of it.