Continuation - Discussion of the Amanda Knox case

[Malkmus]

If Amanda knew that Patrick had left no evidence at the murder scene, it would have been pointless for her to purposely accuse him, because she would know her lie would eventually be found out in the police investigation.

Not to mention she knew he was at work that night, having just told her not to come in and therefore had an irrefutable alibi.

 

[quadraginta]

If Amanda knew that Patrick had left no evidence at the murder scene, it would have been pointless for her to purposely accuse him, because she would know her lie would eventually be found out in the police investigation.

If Knox believed that any identifying evidence of a third party had been eliminated then in her mind the only evidence that would have remained to the police would be her testimony. Direct, eyewitness testimony.

 

[quadraginta]

Not to mention she knew he was at work that night, having just told her not to come in and therefore had an irrefutable alibi.

Which makes it somewhat ironic that he came so very close to having no alibi at all, and needed both time and serendipity to manage one.

 

[Malkmus]

If Knox believed that any identifying evidence of a third party had been eliminated then in her mind the only evidence that would have remained to the police would be her testimony. Direct, eyewitness testimony.

I don't know if it's something you subscribe to, but just so you know, your above theory is in direct conflict with the popular guilter theory that Amanda and Raf purposely left behind Rudy's feces, footprints and fingerprint.

 

[Charlie Wilkes]

I have posted this a couple of times before, and I think it's time to post it again... a summary of the confessions made by the Norfolk Four, who were pardoned last year after spending several years in prison:

Suspect 1 (Danial Williams) is arrested and makes confession, naming no accomplices. But perp DNA doesn't match Suspect 1. So...

Suspect 2 (Joseph Dick) is arrested and makes confession, naming Williams as his accomplice. But perp DNA doesn't match Suspect 2. So...

Suspect 3 (Eric Wilson) is arrested and makes confession, naming Williams and Dick as his accomplices. But perp DNA doesn't match Suspect 3. So...

Suspect 4 (Derek Tice) is arrested and makes confession, naming Williams, Dick, and Wilson as his accomplices. But perp DNA doesn't match Suspect 4. So...

Three more suspects are arrested, none of whose DNA matches the perp, but they refuse to confess.

Eventually, the guy who did it, who is in jail for something else, confesses. His DNA matches the perp. So...

The authorities mount a full-court press to convict ALL their suspects, because to do otherwise would be to admit they made a mistake.

Do you see the pattern here? These guys didn't know who did it. They told the cops what the cops wanted to hear.

 

[colonelhall]

Still discussing the confession, eh?

Charlie Wilkes" We have her hand-written note, in which she says she is unsure of her memory,"

I can certainly understand, that having been under such pressure, the girl's mind may have not been in tip-top working order. Who would not have got a few small details wrong?
However, the issue of whether she was there or not is not likely to be a small detail.
Why would she make such a statement? There is no evidence whatsoever of any police brutality, apart from the suggestion that an unidentified female officer tapped her on the back of the head. Knox has never mentioned thumb screws or waterboarding and someone would surely have reported something if a rack had been ferried into the interrogation room.
I can only surmise that she suspected that evidence had been found that placed her at the scene of the crime, or that Sollecito had dobbed her in it. In which case one can see why she would then make up some kind of story that would show her innocent presence at the scene of the crime.
The poor memory bit would cover most options, were it proved that certain details didn't add up.

Malkmus: "Why no mention in her statement of the staged break-in, or what happened to Meredith's money and phones, or about a clean-up job."

I thought that her statement was freely offered, as a gift. The lack of such details could be explained by her poor memory. On the other hand, if she was merely trying to explain her presence, why would she offer these details?

 

[Malkmus]

Which makes it somewhat ironic that he came so very close to having no alibi at all, and needed both time and serendipity to manage one.

Which, unless Amanda was psychic, there was no way she could have foreseen that.

 

[Mary_H]

Let's look at the last part of this comment first. 'Hard evidence', is exactly the testimony of someone with direct knowledge of a crime. A witness, in other words. This is known as "direct evidence". There is nothing which precludes a witness from also being a participant. Very little other than witness testimony of the crime itself (such as Knox's statements and writing) is legally regarded as direct evidence, and not all of that.

Indirect or "circumstantial evidence" would be pretty much everything else, including things like fingerprints or DNA, or any expert testimony relating to them. Many people are confused about this, and suffer from the misapprehension that it is difficult to convict on circumstantial evidence. It isn't. Most evidence is circumstantial, and many cases are proven as a result.

In the process of investigating a crime standard procedure is to interview as many people as necessary. This process normally begins with those people closest the the victim or the scene until further evidence leads elsewhere.

There is absolutely nothing the least bit unusual about some of those interviews leading to an increased interest in the people being interviewed, nor to some of those people making the transition from a source of information to a person of interest, and then to a suspect.

In fact it is far more the rule than the exception in cases where guilt is not obvious at the scene. I don't understand why you feel that this case should be different than normal. I certainly don't understand how you can characterize the practice as some sort of technicality.

What should be the procedure when the direct evidence provided by a witness's statement turns out to be false?

 

[Malkmus]

Malkmus: "Why no mention in her statement of the staged break-in, or what happened to Meredith's money and phones, or about a clean-up job."

I thought that her statement was freely offered, as a gift. The lack of such details could be explained by her poor memory. On the other hand, if she was merely trying to explain her presence, why would she offer these details?

I'm not talking about her handwritten statement. But if I were, I'm not surprised there's no mention of those things since I'm sure she has no idea either how the window was broken, or what happened to the phones and cash. I was referring to her two statements prior to this at 1 and almost 6 in the morning. Both say almost the exact same thing, that she met up with Patrick and went with him to the cottage where she heard him murder her. What I find bewildering is that the two statements taken by police have no mention of the events which took place after the murder.

 

[Mary_H]

Still discussing the confession, eh?

Charlie Wilkes" We have her hand-written note, in which she says she is unsure of her memory,"

I can certainly understand, that having been under such pressure, the girl's mind may have not been in tip-top working order. Who would not have got a few small details wrong?
However, the issue of whether she was there or not is not likely to be a small detail.
Why would she make such a statement? There is no evidence whatsoever of any police brutality, apart from the suggestion that an unidentified female officer tapped her on the back of the head. Knox has never mentioned thumb screws or waterboarding and someone would surely have reported something if a rack had been ferried into the interrogation room.
I can only surmise that she suspected that evidence had been found that placed her at the scene of the crime, or that Sollecito had dobbed her in it. In which case one can see why she would then make up some kind of story that would show her innocent presence at the scene of the crime.
The poor memory bit would cover most options, were it proved that certain details didn't add up.

Who she committed the crime with is not likely to be a small detail, either. If Amanda "suspected that evidence had been found that placed her at the scene of the crime, or that Sollecito had dobbed her in it," then why would she accuse Patrick and not Rudy?

Malkmus: "Why no mention in her statement of the staged break-in, or what happened to Meredith's money and phones, or about a clean-up job."

I thought that her statement was freely offered, as a gift. The lack of such details could be explained by her poor memory. On the other hand, if she was merely trying to explain her presence, why would she offer these details?

Malkmus is referring to the interrogation, not the written statement. He is wondering why the police got Amanda to say Patrick committed the crime but they didn't ask her for any more details about it than that.

ETA: It's a darn good question. Nice work, Malkmus.

 

[quadraginta]

I have posted this a couple of times before, and I think it's time to post it again...

<snip>

Do you see the pattern here? These guys didn't know who did it. They told the cops what the cops wanted to hear.

Yes. I do see the pattern.

It is repeated in these threads quite often. A pattern of argument by anecdote.

"See? It happened over there, that time, so it must be what happened here, this time."

I find it less than persuasive. Repetition does nothing to change that.

No one that I have read here has seriously questioned that intimidation can happen. The real question is whether or not it happened this time. Attempts to assert that it did by addressing this time in particular started out with claims of fifty hour "brutal" interrogations with deprivation of food, water, and sleep, and somehow always seem to end up being a couple of hours of interview after the kids came in from their pizza dinner.

Then the anecdotes start up again.

Boring. Not persuasive.

 

[quadraginta]

What should be the procedure when the direct evidence provided by a witness's statement turns out to be false?

Your question poses some semantic difficulties.

I think what you meant to ask is,

"What should be the procedure when the direct testimony provided by a witness's statement turns out to be false?"

In such an instance the testimony can no longer be considered "evidence" in support of the premise the witness is defending. The presumption of honesty on the part of a witness is not a given, and witness statements are routinely disputed by both sides of a case, depending on their interests.

In this particular instance the falsification of Knox's testimony by other contradictory evidence created a different sort of evidence in its own right. Evidence which was less beneficial for Knox's case. Evidence that she lied to the police, for whatever reason.

 

[pilot padron]

According to the preface, she reviewed over 10,000 pages of court records to produce that book. However, she says that when Raffaele's father called at 8:42pm no one answered the phone. So, there was at least one document she overlooked.

1) Your event and omission cited above is accepted as accurate, but not as particularly meaningful nor helpful to the argument.
2) Please re-read the disclaimer items accompanying my Post concerning Nadeau and her book

Reproduced here for your convenience
3) Disclaimers:
3A Not to be interpreted as canonization of, nor infallibility for Nadeau
3B Some errors detected and opinions deemed questionable in my reading (twice) of Angel Face.

 

[Mary_H]

Your question poses some semantic difficulties.

I think what you meant to ask is,

"What should be the procedure when the direct testimony provided by a witness's statement turns out to be false?"

In such an instance the testimony can no longer be considered "evidence" in support of the premise the witness is defending. The presumption of honesty on the part of a witness is not a given, and witness statements are routinely disputed by both sides of a case, depending on their interests.

In this particular instance the falsification of Knox's testimony by other contradictory evidence created a different sort of evidence in its own right. Evidence which was less beneficial for Knox's case. Evidence that she lied to the police, for whatever reason.

How unfortunate for her. One would think they would have tried her for lying to the police instead of for murder.

Thank you for the explanation.

 

[quadraginta]

<snip>

Malkmus is referring to the interrogation, not the written statement. He is wondering why the police got Amanda to say Patrick committed the crime but they didn't ask her for any more details about it than that.

ETA: It's a darn good question. Nice work, Malkmus.

My understanding was that when Knox, by her own account, placed herself as a participant at the scene of the murder her status changed from a witness being interviewed about circumstances surrounding the crime to a suspect being charged with involvement in it, at which point they had to stop asking questions until she had legal assistance present.

They weren't allowed to ask any more questions.

I suppose it would be interesting to contemplate why Knox chose to continue to volunteer certain details and not others, but I don't think that's what you meant.

 

[Mary_H]

My understanding was that when Knox, by her own account, placed herself as a participant at the scene of the murder her status changed from a witness being interviewed about circumstances surrounding the crime to a suspect being charged with involvement in it, at which point they had to stop asking questions until she had legal assistance present.

They weren't allowed to ask any more questions.

I suppose it would be interesting to contemplate why Knox chose to continue to volunteer certain details and not others, but I don't think that's what you meant.

Yet there is evidence they did continue to ask questions. Also, she signed many documents after she had placed herself at the scene but before she was given a lawyer. Also, from my point of view, accepting the "free will" written statement from her before she had a lawyer should be looked upon as a violation.

 

[quadraginta]

Yet there is evidence they did continue to ask questions. Also, she signed many documents after she had placed herself at the scene but before she was given a lawyer. Also, from my point of view, accepting the "free will" written statement from her before she had a lawyer should be looked upon as a violation.

Well, you're certainly entitled to your own opinion, and I'll defend your right to express it against any challenges.

 

[Mary_H]

Well, you're certainly entitled to your own opinion, and I'll defend your right to express it against any challenges.

Thank you.

What is your opinion of the evidence that was used to hold Amanda responsible for the crime of murder? Do you think it was sufficient to establish guilt?

 

[Withnail1969]

Do you mean that Quintavalle recognised Knox by sight as not being Italian? Because I know quite a few Italian girls with blonde hair and blue eyes.

Or did he recognise her as non-Italian by how she spoke?

In both respects, it's worthy of note that Quintavalle's shop was within yards of the University for Foreigners - which has over 8,000 non-Italian students. It's fair to suggest that many of these 8,000+ non-Italians visited Quintavalle's shop at some point. Did Knox really stand out all that much?

Apparently Knox had her face concealed with a scarf and hat because she was trying to look inconspicuous, and did not speak, but Quintavalle recognised her as not being Italian.

 

[pilot padron]

I have to agree that Amanda wearing a scarf and hat are not implausible items of clothing to have worn that morning (although I do think it would seriously inhibit one's ability to identify her positively).

I think it's distracting, though, from the real reasons that Quintavalle is a bad witness: The contradicting testimony, the fact that he came forward at the urging of a journalist (the other witness we know of that came forward due to a journalist was the one who took a bribe to do so), and his statement in court "I'm not absolutely sure that can be her".

1) May I hasten to agree with you that Marco Quintavalle was not the model for any Law School 101 class in what to look for in a *perfect* witness.

2) The characterization of him however as a 'bad' witness is *yours* and not only unsupported by you here, but also unshared universally

3) Your insinuation of him taking a bribe which would certainly add much to his above admitted imperfection, (if true) is supported by you very thinly.
In fact you support this insinuation of bribe taking only by citing another witness who did so.
This is not only a rather unique association, but using it here it here is again "unique", as well as completely unconvincing and unhelpful to your argument.

4) Your cite of some of his exact testimony accents the imperfect cloak I have also agreed with you to wrap him in.
Rest assured, I heartily agree with you that those words of Marco Quintavalle probably were not revelled over with gleeful praise when uttered nor acclaimed with clinked glasses of red wine at Prosecutors Mignini and Comodi's next pasta dinner together

5) Please consider 1-4 above as little more than a direct response to your argument, which may well be shared by others here.

In the broad spectrum of witnesses and evidence that led to the unanimous conviction of Amanda Knox as a murderess, Marco Quintavalle's perfection and/or lack thereof as a witness is not, (in your terminology).... the "real reason".