Continuation - Discussion of the Amanda Knox case

[Chris_Halkides]

Was the Duke lacrosse case a conspiracy?

When accuser Crystal Mangum described the men who allegedly raped her, she used words like chubby and heavy-set (250+ lbs for one, IIRC) for all three and did not describe any one as being tall. One of the three accused was 6’1” and another was 6’5” and 210 lbs. However, about three months later Officer Brian Gottlieb wrote a “from memory” description of the three indicted men that pretty much nailed their physical descriptions. The New York Times took his statement very seriously, but the blogosphere pummeled it.

Most people are aware that then district attorney Michael Nifong behaved unethically and illegally in this case, but I would wager than not nearly as many are aware of police misconduct in this case, or the misconduct of the private DNA testing lab that did the YSTR testing. I doubt that Nifong told Gottlieb to do this, but neither did he have to. There was also the release of an ill-considered email from an unindicted player which had no bearing on the case, yet served to fan the flames of public outrage. And certainly the unfavorable press coverage and intemperate criticisms from some of the Duke faculty cannot be ascribed to a conspiracy. Perhaps calling it a coincidence of interests is a better description.

In the fall of 2006 the CBS news program 60 Minutes aired a segment on the case that included interviews with the three indicted players and the second dancer. I would hazard a guess that some wondered why CBS news would want to talk to (alleged) rapists whose parents footed legal bills into the six figures, by some estimates. But CBS did, and tide of public opinion began to turn. Two months later, the hiding of exculpatory evidence surfaced, and public opinion moved sharply in response.

Does this incident have anything to do with the Knox/Sollecito case? I report, you decide.

 

[christianahannah]

When accuser Crystal Mangum described the men who allegedly raped her, she used words like chubby and heavy-set (250+ lbs for one, IIRC) for all three and did not describe any one as being tall. One of the three accused was 6’1” and another was 6’5” and 210 lbs. However, about three months later Officer Brian Gottlieb wrote a “from memory” description of the three indicted men that pretty much nailed their physical descriptions. The New York Times took his statement very seriously, but the blogosphere pummeled it.

Most people are aware that then district attorney Michael Nifong behaved unethically and illegally in this case, but I would wager than not nearly as many are aware of police misconduct in this case, or the misconduct of the private DNA testing lab that did the YSTR testing. I doubt that Nifong told Gottlieb to do this, but neither did he have to. There was also the release of an ill-considered email from an unindicted player which had no bearing on the case, yet served to fan the flames of public outrage. And certainly the unfavorable press coverage and intemperate criticisms from some of the Duke faculty cannot be ascribed to a conspiracy. Perhaps calling it a coincidence of interests is a better description.

In the fall of 2006 the CBS news program 60 Minutes aired a segment on the case that included interviews with the three indicted players and the second dancer. I would hazard a guess that some wondered why CBS news would want to talk to (alleged) rapists whose parents footed legal bills into the six figures, by some estimates. But CBS did, and tide of public opinion began to turn. Two months later, the hiding of exculpatory evidence surfaced, and public opinion moved sharply in response.

Does this incident have anything to do with the Knox/Sollecito case? I report, you decide.

Chris I can't answer your question (Was the Duke lacrosse case a conspiracy?) because I don't have the facts you do or know as much about the case as you do, however, I don't believe the Knox/Sollecito case is a conspiracy.

From the above you have written, it appears that there was much blame all around (in the Duke case), but it was proven in court (the misconduct of officials), not speculated on, correct?

Misconduct has yet to be proven of the Knox/Sollecito judicial process and, so far, I haven't seen anything to verify that this is so.

 

[Chris_Halkides]

on Amanda's anonymous coworker in Seattle

Solange305,

When a reporter cites anonymous sources, he is asking his readers to trust him in ways that a reporter who cites with attribution does not. In the case of the article by Charles Mudede on the anonymous “Michael”* who recalled Amanda saying “My people killed your people,” the reporter made several factual errors. One concerns the washing machine, which was not running when the police arrived. A second is that feces are said to be in the wrong bathroom. Mudede also mentioned several witnesses whom he said saw Knox and a darkish man in a laundromat the night of the murder. A third is that a surveillance camera captured Knox that night. The laundromat story is new to me, but I find it doubtful. Equally problematic for me is the fact that of all the hypotheticals he considers, that Raffaele and Amanda are innocent is never mentioned.

Another problem is that Mudede may have reported what “Michael”* said with absolute accuracy. And yet we don’t know his real identity, and he is not on a witness stand. For these reasons, I don’t take “Michael”* all that seriously.

*Mr. Mudede named his anonymous source Matthew, not Michael, as another commenter pointed out to me.

 

[LondonJohn]

Chris I can't answer your question (Was the Duke lacrosse case a conspiracy?) because I don't have the facts you do or know as much about the case as you do, however, I don't believe the Knox/Sollecito case is a conspiracy.

From the above you have written, it appears that there was much blame all around (in the Duke case), but it was proven in court (the misconduct of officials), not speculated on, correct?

Misconduct has yet to be proven of the Knox/Sollecito judicial process and, so far, I haven't seen anything to verify that this is so.

But that's Chris' point, I think. He's saying that there doesn't have to be anything close to a conspiracy. A conspiracy implies a conscious collective decision, and some form of plan. But in the Duke lacrosse case there just seemed to be an early conclusion formed by law enforcement officials, who then consciously and subconsciously moulded the evidence to fit their conclusion. In this way, no two LE officials would ever have needed to communicate with each other about what was happening - but many constituent elements of the LE and justice community clearly had a vested interest in ensuring that the case went all the way to court convictions.

And there are already so very many elements in the Kercher case which fit a similar pattern. For instance, Perugia police chief Arturo de Felice coming out with the immensely revealing statement - made within days of Knox's "confession/accusation" - that Knox had "crumbled" and "made an admission of facts that we knew were correct". Then there's the police obfuscation over whether the footprints had been tested for blood (they had been, with a negative result). And then there's the test on the kitchen knife, where the tester was specifically told to search for Kercher's DNA, and apparently managed to find some at level far lower than she had been able to discover on any other piece of evidence. And there's the overarching factor that both cases were high-profile cases which had aroused widespread local (and even national) outrage, and where the public demanded convictions.

ETA: And let's not forget that the prosecutor in the first trial, and the person who drove and directed the entire case against Knox and Sollecito, currently stands convicted of abuse of office in another case. I'd say that this significantly increases the possibility that untoward things happened in the prosecution of Knox and Sollecito.

 

[Chris_Halkides]

Some misconduct was proven

Chris I can't answer your question (Was the Duke lacrosse case a conspiracy?) because I don't have the facts you do or know as much about the case as you do, however, I don't believe the Knox/Sollecito case is a conspiracy.

From the above you have written, it appears that there was much blame all around (in the Duke case), but it was proven in court (the misconduct of officials), not speculated on, correct?

Misconduct has yet to be proven of the Knox/Sollecito judicial process and, so far, I haven't seen anything to verify that this is so.

Christianahannah,

Some misconduct, that of Brian Meehan and Michael Nifong, was proven. However, the civil trials have yet to occur in this case, and that is where one expects to see more evidence presented about the behavior of Durham's officials. Unfortunately, North Carolina does not record grand jury testimony, so there is no way to verify whether or not Officers Gottlieb and Himan perjured themselves. The incidents I discussed are by no means the only ones that involved LE stepping over the line.

 

[christianahannah]

But that's Chris' point, I think. He's saying that there doesn't have to be anything close to a conspiracy. A conspiracy implies a conscious collective decision, and some form of plan. But in the Duke lacrosse case there just seemed to be an early conclusion formed by law enforcement officials, who then consciously and subconsciously moulded the evidence to fit their conclusion. In this way, no two LE officials would ever have needed to communicate with each other about what was happening - but many constituent elements of the LE and justice community clearly had a vested interest in ensuring that the case went all the way to court convictions.

And there are already so very many elements in the Kercher case which fit a similar pattern. For instance, Perugia police chief Arturo de Felice coming out with the immensely revealing statement - made within days of Knox's "confession/accusation" - that Knox had "crumbled" and "made an admission of facts that we knew were correct". Then there's the police obfuscation over whether the footprints had been tested for blood (they had been, with a negative result). And then there's the test on the kitchen knife, where the tester was specifically told to search for Kercher's DNA, and apparently managed to find some at level far lower than she had been able to discover on any other piece of evidence. And there's the overarching factor that both cases were high-profile cases which had aroused widespread local (and even national) outrage, and where the public demanded convictions.

What would those vested interests have been, for either the Duke case or the Knox/Sollecito case?

As far as the public's demands, I think the demands are there in any high-profile case to have it solved and those responsible brought to justice, however, I don't think the public or the judicial officials want the innocent convicted to satisfy those demands.

 

[Chris_Halkides]

ILE threw down a marker

Christianahanah,

LondonJohn is correct. The authorities in Perugia had an impromptu parade and declard the case closed. Dr. Giobbi (in Rome, IIRC) made is clear he had identified the guilty parties without waiting for forensic evidence. At this point, everyone probably knew what they were supposed to do and not do.

 

[pilot padron]

Solange305,

When a reporter cites anonymous sources, he is asking his readers to trust him in ways that a reporter who cites with attribution does not. In the case of the article by on the anonymous “Michael” who recalled Amanda saying “My people killed your people,” the reporter made several factual errors. One concerns the washing machine, which was not running when the police arrived. A second is that feces are said to be in the wrong bathroom. Mudede also mentioned several witnesses whom he said saw Knox and a darkish man in a laundromat the night of the murder. A third is that a surveillance camera captured Knox that night. The laundromat story is new to me, but I find it doubtful. Equally problematic for me is the fact that of all the hypotheticals he considers, that Raffaele and Amanda are innocent is never mentioned.

Another problem is that Mudede may have reported what “Michael” said with absolute accuracy. And yet we don’t know his real identity, and he is not on a witness stand. For these reasons, I don’t take “Michael” all that seriously.

Just arrived here and would like to definitely 'take *your* post seriously' about factual errors.

However, I really could not get past possibly the most glaring error in the post.
Just who is this 'Michael'? you refer to?
Did I miss something in my re-reading of the Muede article ??

 

[christianahannah]

Christianahanah,

LondonJohn is correct. The authorities in Perugia had an impromptu parade and declard the case closed. Dr. Giobbi (in Rome, IIRC) made is clear he had identified the guilty parties without waiting for forensic evidence. At this point, everyone probably knew what they were supposed to do and not do.

Well, the authorities had to admit a mistake with Patrick and free him, even though they were sure he was in collusion with Raffaele and Amanda. And then Rudy comes along, with much evidence against him (forensic, his own words, etc.) and they could have dropped the charges against Amanda and Raffaele without incurring the wrath of the public because they now had the murderer of Meredith.

I just don't see what it would profit the authorities to convict Amanda and Raffaele if they believed them to be innocent of Meredith's murder.

 

[Dan O.]

Not sure, perhaps you know of any case that the Italian prosecutors brought to the courts with exactly zero evidence to back up their accusations; then can compare like with like.

How about that case from early November 2007 where the prosecutors declared that a couple of students and another man murdered one of the students room mates when they had exactly zero evidence. Perhaps you've heard of it.

 

[LondonJohn]

What would those vested interests have been, for either the Duke case or the Knox/Sollecito case?

As far as the public's demands, I think the demands are there in any high-profile case to have it solved and those responsible brought to justice, however, I don't think the public or the judicial officials want the innocent convicted to satisfy those demands.

For the prosecutors in each case (the DA in the Duke case and Mignini in the Perugia case), the incentive was to preserve their integrity, after having made (or having had their representatives make) bold and confident statements early on that they had solved the crime.

For the police and investigators, the avoidance of conflict with the prosecutors, and the implicit promise of patronage by the prosecutors.

As far as your last paragraph goes, it's really not as black-and-white as that. I suspect that many of the LE and justice communities in both cases entirely convinced themselves that they had caught and convicted the correct people. I think, however, that this may be because they examined those individuals through an inappropriate filter of assumed guilt, and interpreted evidence accordingly.

 

[Chris_Halkides]

Matthew, not Michael

Just arrived here and would like to definitely 'take *your* post seriously' about factual errors.

However, I really could not get past possibly the most glaring error in the post.
Just who is this 'Michael'? you refer to?
Did I miss something in my re-reading of the Muede article ??

Good catch. Charles Mudede called his anonymous source Matthew, not Michael, and I have corrected my original comment. Did you find any other innacuracies in Mr. Mudede's article, besides the one's I mentioned?

 

[LondonJohn]

Well, the authorities had to admit a mistake with Patrick and free him, even though they were sure he was in collusion with Raffaele and Amanda. And then Rudy comes along, with much evidence against him (forensic, his own words, etc.) and they could have dropped the charges against Amanda and Raffaele without incurring the wrath of the public because they now had the murderer of Meredith.

I just don't see what it would profit the authorities to convict Amanda and Raffaele if they believed them to be innocent of Meredith's murder.

They had absolutely no choice BUT to release Lumumba, because he had an unimpeachable alibi (and even then it took them far longer to release him than it should have done, and they inexplicably kept his bar closed until it went broke). Having previously announced that they had "solved the case" with Lumumba as a participant, it's not hard to believe that Mignini and the senior police were somewhat embarrassed to have to let Lumumba go.

But when proper forensic evidence came back implicating Guede, it may have been all too easy for them to just substitute Lumumba for Guede, and still be able to claim that they had basically solved the crime back in that 6-10 November period. They could plausibly say that they were still correct in their deductions on the dynamic of the crime, and the interaction of three participants, but that the third murderer was Guede, not Lumumba (and this was the only thing they'd got wrong - and only because Knox had named Lumumba). To me, this can clearly be interpreted as a face-saving self-preservation strategy.

 

[Chris C]

In regards to whether a conspiracy has been committed I will say this. The US government charges lots of people with conspiracy.

Conspiracy has been defined in the US as an agreement of two or more people to commit a crime, or to accomplish a legal end through illegal actions.

I do not know what Italy defines a conspiracy as. So please dont jump this post screaming about its Italy. I know that already.
Now if you want to apply the US legal term to the Knox/Sollecito case In ITALY. There are grounds to consider it a conspiracy.

If the police committed any illegal actions and they where used against the defense, technically you got a conspiracy. In the US if the rights of a suspect are violated by the police and then used against the suspect to get a conviction, the police can be charged with conspiracy and most likely will be charged. Even if the suspect is granted a new trial and still gets convicted. The police will get charged with conspiracy since the act is considered seperate from the suspects crime.

If the prosecution purposely withholds evidence or witnesses for the prosecution withholds evidence, either/both the parties can be charged with conspiracy.

 

[Chris_Halkides]

to get along, go along

Well, the authorities had to admit a mistake with Patrick and free him, even though they were sure he was in collusion with Raffaele and Amanda. And then Rudy comes along, with much evidence against him (forensic, his own words, etc.) and they could have dropped the charges against Amanda and Raffaele without incurring the wrath of the public because they now had the murderer of Meredith.

I just don't see what it would profit the authorities to convict Amanda and Raffaele if they believed them to be innocent of Meredith's murder.

Christianahannah,

If one's superiors or even your colleagues in LE take a stance in a case, one has to weigh the cost of contradicting them against the certainty of one's belief that they have made a mistake. it is entirely possible that there are people in ILE who believe that this case was handled unethically or sloppily, yet are 50/50 (or somewhere in this vicinity) on whether Knox and Sollecito are guilty. Under those circumstances, i can understand a decision to keep quiet about one's concerns. No big conference table or massive conspiracy is needed, nor is one implied by me.

 

[Justinian2]

PS-Why couldn't Amanda identify the police woman who allegedly hit her when confronted by the 8 policemen/women who were involved in her interrogation?

People remember the faces of their batterers forever; it is something which is etched into our memories.

1.) How is anyone supposed to defend themselves on the witness stand if they think they will be sued everytime they try to explain themselves? It's suppression. Can't be done.

2.) There are many studies that show people a video of a crime in progress. They see the perp face to face. Then they are asked to pick the "perp" from a lineup. Everyone picks one in the lineup. All are wrong. The "perp" isn't in the lineup!

 

[pilot padron]

1.) How is anyone supposed to defend themselves on the witness stand if they think they will be sued everytime they try to explain themselves? It's suppression. Can't be done.

2.) There are many studies that show people a video of a crime in progress. They see the perp face to face. Then they are asked to pick the "perp" from a lineup. Everyone picks one in the lineup. All are wrong. The "perp" isn't in the lineup!

Kinda new here, but help me understand your reply.
1) Truth from witnesses is impossible because of fear of lawsuits ?

2) *After* Amanda had already made the incriminating statement about being cuffed, when further requested to identify which of the 12 Police Officers all then plainly seated in very close proximity to her had done it, she was unable.
What exactly do videos do to alleviate the doubt this cast on her 'testimony' ?
Per chance was the Italian system's granting defendants permission (and expectation) to lie possibly a factor here ?

 

[Chris_Halkides]

EveryOne's report

Kinda new here, but help me understand your reply.
1) Truth from witnesses is impossible because of fear of lawsuits ?

2) *After* Amanda had already made the incriminating statement about being cuffed, when further requested to identify which of the 12 Police Officers all then plainly seated in very close proximity to her had done it, she was unable.
What exactly do videos do to alleviate the doubt this cast on her 'testimony' ?
Per chance was the Italian system's granting defendants permission (and expectation) to lie possibly a factor here ?

Pilot Padron,

From a report (available at www.statewatch.org) prepared by the human rights group EveryOne on police violence in Italy, “When human rights activists report episodes of violence or abuse of power being perpetrated by rogue officers to local or national institutions, a worrying phenomenon nearly always takes place. Instead of collecting precise reports of the episodes in order to investigate and identify those responsible for the abuse, the superiors shut up like a clam, denying without question that such disgraceful acts could have taken place. They assume a threatening tone with the associations and threaten to report them for slander, libel and defamation etc. This attitude, which the leaders of EveryOne themselves have witnessed on several occasions, prevents the rogue officers being isolated and their behaviour discouraged. On the contrary, it makes them feel part of an agency in which they are allowed to act above the law using violence, threats and acts of gratuitous coercion. According to the activists, after reporting misconduct by uniformed police officers towards racial minorities, it is not rare for the activists themselves to be followed by plain clothes policemen or summoned to police stations or headquarters and ‘advised’ not to take any further action.”

Sounds to me as if the problem is more widespread than a single incident in the Knox/Sollecito case. A video of the woman with chestnut colored hair cuffing Amanda would be somewhat helpful to corroborate her claims, methinks. You might want to search this thread or the previous one using “Francesca Bene” as a search term for some more discussion on this question.

 

[Chris_Halkides]

false police statements

What would those vested interests have been, for either the Duke case or the Knox/Sollecito case?

As far as the public's demands, I think the demands are there in any high-profile case to have it solved and those responsible brought to justice, however, I don't think the public or the judicial officials want the innocent convicted to satisfy those demands.

I wish that I shared your sentiments. By July of 2006 substantial exculpatory evidence had long been available in the Duke lacrosse case. Gottlieb's statement could have put three innocent men away for thirty years apiece. Why did he do it? I cannot formulate an entirely satisfactory answer, but the fact remains that he did.

 

[Chris C]

Kinda new here, but help me understand your reply.
1) Truth from witnesses is impossible because of fear of lawsuits ?

2) *After* Amanda had already made the incriminating statement about being cuffed, when further requested to identify which of the 12 Police Officers all then plainly seated in very close proximity to her had done it, she was unable.
What exactly do videos do to alleviate the doubt this cast on her 'testimony' ?
Per chance was the Italian system's granting defendants permission (and expectation) to lie possibly a factor here ?

Its an open ended questions the prosecution asked. Knox says she was hit in the back of the head by someone standing behind her. So the prosecutors says can you identify that person. The prosecutor knows that no matter how knox responds, it can be refuted. If knox points to the person, the prosecutor asks how could u see the person if they was standing behind you. You was hit in the back of the head. If she is unable to identify the person because they where behind her, shes accused of being a liar. Either way, its seems Italy doesn't want to do anything about the other abuses committed against knox by the police because it might shed doubt on them hitting her in the back of the head.