Continuation - Discussion of the Amanda Knox case

[Mary_H]

Gretings Samba,
and welcome to JREF!
You question is a good 1 that I, a surfer who grew up on the streets of Venice Beach has an easy answer for:
If I was somehow involved in a bloody, brutal stabbing murder between 2 female housemates, and was witness or had even any small part in that, to save my own hide from 25 years in the pen, I would have definately become "State's Witness" soooo fast and turned on some chick that I had been bangin' for only a week...

That's just me though.
A guy who has had to sit thru a civil, not criminal, trial for the crime of rape.
Your view might be different...
RWVBWL

LOL, RWVBWL, how I love your inimitable earthy take on things. I thought of you when I read SomeAlibi's list of evidence for what happened the morning of the 2nd.

SomeAlibi wrote: "Concerning the morning of the second. Here's the problem. Raffaele and Amanda say there were asleep until 10-10.30am. Yet, by the evidence from the computer and cellphone records:

Someone "wakes up" sometime before 5.30 and lies awake long enough to realise they are not going back to sleep
Someone gets out of bed <5.30am (if they were asleep) and goes to the laptop which is on the desk (see video).
Someone swipes the trackpad on the laptop to knock off a screen-saver
Someone starts the media-player app VLC and it crashes
Someone starts VLC again and it crashes once more
Someone switches to iTunes and starts it (comprehensively disproving with the above that this is some sort of automated playing of a track - definitively someone was kicking off and switching those apps)
Someone hits play on a specific track in iTunes
Someone plays music between 5.32 and approximately 6am - nearly half an hour of played music
Someone also creates a playlist between that time.
Someone switches on Raffaele's mobile phone on shortly after 6am.
Somoene receives an SMS on that phone from the night before (Raffaele's father's good-night SMS)Raffaele's phone receives a phonecall after 9am where Raffaele's father talks to his son for over four minutes straight - 262 seconds. Try starting a stop-watch and then start reading something for over four minutes. It's an extremely long time not to recall.
The phone call finishes and Raffaele hits the finish call button or the call is interrupted
Less than a minutes later the phone rings again and there is another call for 38 seconds.
The phone call finishes and Raffaele hits the finish call button or the call is interrupted
Within seconds the phone rings again and it is Raffaele's father yet again.

But Raffaele and Amanda tell you they were asleep til 10.30? It's pretty hard to believe, isn't it?

What the computer and cellphone records tell you is that they were up and concerned, wondering what on earth to do; that music playing for over half an hour is something to try and calm down and distract themselves. That's a plethora of evidence they weren't asleep and collapsing alibis are usually treated by juries as signs of something very wrong with defendant testimony for very good reasons."

Yes, it is hard to believe they were asleep, but SomeAlibi's evidence doesn't lead me in the same sinister direction it leads him. For those of us who didn't have our noses to the grindstone in law school when we were in our early twenties, if we woke up in our boyfriend or girlfriend's bed at dawn, we didn't go back to sleep, if you catch my drift.

How about this scenario instead?

Raffaele gets up at 5:30 to go to the bathroom. Amanda is pounding her ear, and he is too polite to wake her up, so he gets back in bed with his laptop and starts playing music (songs he knows she likes?), hoping that'll do the trick.

At 6:00 the SMS from Raffaele's dad comes in. (BTW, it is concluded by the judge that this indicates Raffaele's turned his phone on, but it is not proven by phone records.) Amanda is awake by this time, whether from the music or the SMS; they make love for a while, then doze off again. At around 9, Raffaele's dad calls, they talk. Amanda is tired, so she sleeps. After Raffaele talks to his dad, he goes back to sleep.

Amanda wakes up again around 10 or 10:30. She testifies:

AK: So, when I woke up, I don't remember what time it was, but I think around 10, 10:30, I was there and I saw that Raffaele was still sleeping, so I watched him for a little while, then I said, okay, I'm going home to take a shower and change, and when I come back, we'll go, because we had this plan to go to Gubbio, because it was a holiday that day, there was no school for me, or anyway I was going to skip it.

The elephant in the room is that Amanda and Raffaele probably had sex all night, with short naps between sessions. The first several days they were questioned by police, they didn't know the horrible fate that was about to befall them, so they withheld the personal details -- after all, it's nobody's business. Once Amanda had told the police she had slept in until about 10, she was not about to go back and say, "Well, what I meant was, we got it on for awhile at 6 and then went back to sleep. Raffaele's dad called at 9 and I dozed while he talked to him. By the time I woke up at 10, Raffaele had fallen back to sleep. We were both super-super-tired from doing it all night."

Does that sound more likely to you, RWVBWL?

 

[RoseMontague]

I believe the prosecution is appealing against the mitigating factors (including the covering of the body) which the first court applied to lessen the sentence slightly.

Catnip at PMF had a nice summary of the Italian appeal from Mignini/Comodi asking for a longer sentence. I am unable to link to that but if you search there you should find it.

 

[platonov]

The comparisons are valid; there is no false analogy or hyperbole. To compare what happened in the Dreyfus case is not to say Dreyfus and Amanda are similar. It is to suggest that the same mechanisms that were at work in Dreyfus's case may very well be at work in Amanda and Raffaele's case, including false accusations and suppression of evidence, to name only two of many.

Often the argument is presented that Amanda must be guilty or she wouldn't have been convicted. A valid response is to ask the claimant to reflect on whether Jesus Christ was crucified because he was guilty. The knee-jerk answer invariably comes: "Oh, so now you're comparing Amanda to Jesus Christ!" The intention is ridicule and a cessation of discussion -- in another word, bullying.

We use famous people in our analogies because they are examples known to most readers. It doesn't call to mind the same kind of reasoning if we say, "Look at what happened to people you've never heard of and have to go look up."

Keep your categories straight -- people are people, situations are situations. The point of these analogies is to compare situations. There's nothing hyperbolic about it.

Well we certainly agree on 1 thing - I never suggested it was hyperbolic.

I think the comparison is 'beyond hyperbole' on the basis of the situation, you and others disagree.
There we have it.

As regards the 'Jesus Christ' issue:
Leaving aside that the debate here is not of the form "all convictions are safe" the comparison would certainly be met with initial surprise in some quarters but a moments reflection shows similarities.

The faith based certainty of the 'innocentsi' based on belief in myths and a lack of knowledge of the case spring to mind.

As far as we an tell the figure your Jesus Christ was based on 'suffered the extreme penalty' - possibly for insurrection.
As for guilt or innocence [under whose law - Roman ?] or indeed much more than the above - who can say at this remove.

.

 

[Katody Matrass]

The elephant in the room is that Amanda and Raffaele probably had sex all night, with short naps between sessions. The first several days they were questioned by police, they didn't know the horrible fate that was about to befall them, so they withheld the personal details -- after all, it's nobody's business. Once Amanda had told the police she had slept in until about 10, she was not about to go back and say, "Well, what I meant was, we got it on for awhile at 6 and then went back to sleep. Raffaele's dad called at 9 and I dozed while he talked to him. By the time I woke up at 10, Raffaele had fallen back to sleep. We were both super-super-tired from doing it all night."

Does that sound more likely to you, RWVBWL?

Mary_H, it rings very very true to me

 

[LondonJohn]

LOL, RWVBWL, how I love your inimitable earthy take on things. I thought of you when I read SomeAlibi's list of evidence for what happened the morning of the 2nd.




Yes, it is hard to believe they were asleep, but SomeAlibi's evidence doesn't lead me in the same sinister direction it leads him. For those of us who didn't have our noses to the grindstone in law school when we were in our early twenties, if we woke up in our boyfriend or girlfriend's bed at dawn, we didn't go back to sleep, if you catch my drift.

How about this scenario instead?

Raffaele gets up at 5:30 to go to the bathroom. Amanda is pounding her ear, and he is too polite to wake her up, so he gets back in bed with his laptop and starts playing music (songs he knows she likes?), hoping that'll do the trick.

At 6:00 the SMS from Raffaele's dad comes in. (BTW, it is concluded by the judge that this indicates Raffaele's turned his phone on, but it is not proven by phone records.) Amanda is awake by this time, whether from the music or the SMS; they make love for a while, then doze off again. At around 9, Raffaele's dad calls, they talk. Amanda is tired, so she sleeps. After Raffaele talks to his dad, he goes back to sleep.

Amanda wakes up again around 10 or 10:30. She testifies:




The elephant in the room is that Amanda and Raffaele probably had sex all night, with short naps between sessions. The first several days they were questioned by police, they didn't know the horrible fate that was about to befall them, so they withheld the personal details -- after all, it's nobody's business. Once Amanda had told the police she had slept in until about 10, she was not about to go back and say, "Well, what I meant was, we got it on for awhile at 6 and then went back to sleep. Raffaele's dad called at 9 and I dozed while he talked to him. By the time I woke up at 10, Raffaele had fallen back to sleep. We were both super-super-tired from doing it all night."

Does that sound more likely to you, RWVBWL?

Either that, or Knox really did sleep all the way through til 10am or so. It's entirely plausible that Sollecito might have woken up around 5.30, messed around on his computer for half an hour or so, played some music, checked his cellphone for messages, then went back to sleep until his father called him just before 9.30am, then went back to doze/sleep again until around 10am. And all without Knox ever properly waking.

Most people who share a bed with a partner (me included) know how possible it is to wake in the night and put on the TV or play music for a while, without your partner ever waking up. And I've definitely made phone calls before under the same circumstances.

As I mentioned before, I don't believe that Sollecito has ever been questioned in depth about the exact circumstances of that night. If I'd been to bed last night, woke up at 5.30 and watched TV for half an hour, went back to sleep, was woken by the phone at 9.30, then went back to sleep again until 10.00-10.30am, and I was asked what time I'd got up this morning, I'd undoubtedly say "10-10.30".

Maybe the appeal will make things a little clearer...

 

[Mary_H]

Mary_H, it rings very very true to me

Thank you, Katody.

 

[Mary_H]

Either that, or Knox really did sleep all the way through til 10am or so. It's entirely plausible that Sollecito might have woken up around 5.30, messed around on his computer for half an hour or so, played some music, checked his cellphone for messages, then went back to sleep until his father called him just before 9.30am, then went back to doze/sleep again until around 10am. And all without Knox ever properly waking.

Most people who share a bed with a partner (me included) know how possible it is to wake in the night and put on the TV or play music for a while, without your partner ever waking up. And I've definitely made phone calls before under the same circumstances.

As I mentioned before, I don't believe that Sollecito has ever been questioned in depth about the exact circumstances of that night. If I'd been to bed last night, woke up at 5.30 and watched TV for half an hour, went back to sleep, was woken by the phone at 9.30, then went back to sleep again until 10.00-10.30am, and I was asked what time I'd got up this morning, I'd undoubtedly say "10-10.30".

Maybe the appeal will make things a little clearer...

Absolutely, LJ.

 

[LondonJohn]

Well we certainly agree on 1 thing - I never suggested it was hyperbolic.

I think the comparison is 'beyond hyperbole' on the basis of the situation, you and others disagree.
There we have it.

As regards the 'Jesus Christ' issue:
Leaving aside that the debate here is not of the form "all convictions are safe" the comparison would certainly be met with initial surprise in some quarters but a moments reflection shows similarities.

The faith based certainty of the 'innocentsi' based on belief in myths and a lack of knowledge of the case spring to mind.

As far as we an tell the figure your Jesus Christ was based on 'suffered the extreme penalty' - possibly for insurrection.
As for guilt or innocence [under whose law - Roman ?] or indeed much more than the above - who can say at this remove.

.

I don't think that many of the "innocentisti" display a "faith-based certainty". Indeed, I think that many people who believe that the convictions may be unsafe - myself included - would argue the exact opposite: it's exactly the uncertainty which mitigates heavily against finding Knox and Sollecito guilty beyond a reasonable doubt. Unfortunately, though, the first court seems to have accepted very readily the faith-based certainty of the prosecutors.

 

[Mary_H]

Another thought occurs in response to SA's suggestion: "What the computer and cellphone records tell you is that they were up and concerned, wondering what on earth to do; that music playing for over half an hour is something to try and calm down and distract themselves. That's a plethora of evidence they weren't asleep and collapsing alibis are usually treated by juries as signs of something very wrong with defendant testimony for very good reasons."

We have evidence Raffaele was on his computer at 6 and on the phone to his father at 9 -- both at his apartment. Why wasn't he over at the cottage cleaning up?

 

[LondonJohn]

Another thought occurs in response to SA's suggestion: "What the computer and cellphone records tell you is that they were up and concerned, wondering what on earth to do; that music playing for over half an hour is something to try and calm down and distract themselves. That's a plethora of evidence they weren't asleep and collapsing alibis are usually treated by juries as signs of something very wrong with defendant testimony for very good reasons."

We have evidence Raffaele was on his computer at 6 and on the phone to his father at 9 -- both at his apartment. Why wasn't he over at the cottage cleaning up?

Yes - I made that very point over the weekend. It didn't receive any kind of response......

 

[christianahannah]

Thanks for the answer christianahannah,

To clarify, when I wrote that both Massei and Amanda were tricked, I meant strictly the fact that both of them didn't know that Comodi was talking about the 12:47 phone call. It is very clear in the transcript excerpt katy_did posted:

GCM: Did you have the habit of calling her at that time? Did it happen on other occasions? At midday in Italy? At a time where in Seattle...people don't usually call each other in the middle of the night.

AK: Yes, yes, of course.

GCM: So either you had a particular motive, or it was a habit.

AK: Yes. Well, since I don't remember this phone call, because I remember the one I made later, but obviously I made that phone call. If I did that, it's because I thought that I had something I had to tell her. Maybe I thought right then that there was something strange, because at that moment, when I went to Raffaele's place, I did think there was something strange, but I didn't know what to think. But I really don't remember this phone call, so I can't say for sure why. But I guess it was because I came home and the door was open, and then --​

The fact that even Massei was tricked makes me think it's probable the jury also understood it exactly as Comodi intended: That Amanda made a suspicious phone call at 12:00 before anything happened and revealed in that call knowledge of facts that she could know about only after discovering the break-in.




That is not correct. He definitely quotes Comodi's imprecision at least once, without a correction or acknowledging the error. He implies Comodi is only quoting Edda, which is another imprecision. But in other place he directly acknowledges the point which Comodi was trying to make by her trick:


While Massei is not logical because here he states the 12:47 time (but is he ever?) he fully adopts the point of Comodi's dirty trick. To clarify again - I am sure that at that moment he was already aware of Comodi's foul play. He just found it to be a great idea and used it in the motivation.


I don't agree. Even if Comodi's point were not in the motivation (yet it is there) impressions of the jury still definitely influenced the verdict.

I see it differently (that does not surprise you?). On page 74 of the motivations Massei is summarizing the questions presented to Amanda by Comodi, including the general time of the first call to Amanda's mother, and Amanda's answers.

Massei then goes on to state on page 95 of the motivations that the first call to Amanda's mother was made at 12:47. So see, Massei wasn't tricked. And he made sure the time of the call was documented correctly in the motivations.

I don't think Amanda was tricked because she did not remember the call and did not allude to remembering the call during her testimony.

I am curious though, why does Comodi have to be lying or playing dirty tricks?

 

[samba]

Motive vs. premeditated/spontaneous murder

I've noticed that a few posts today have dealt with the relationship between AK and MK....basically commenting that there doesn't appear to be any evidence that there was any animosity between them. When I first heard of this crime, I was immediately interested in what the motive was. I realize that not every murder has a motive (serial murderers could be one example), but I thought that determining motive was a key part of any prosecution case. The lack of physical evidence in this case could certainly trump any motive, but it's the apparent lack of motive in this case that bothers me the most.

According to IIP, over the course of the case, Mignini proposed five different motives:

1. the Satanic ritual one
2. drug-fueled sex orgy gone bad
3. theft of MK's money
4. Amanda just not liking Meredith...for being prim & proper
5. Amanda being a natural born killer

If I were to assign a notion of premeditation or spontaneity to these motives, I would say that 1,3 & 4 would contain some elements of premeditation. #2 would certainly be spontaneous...and 5..well...I'm not sure I could possibly believe that one, but let's just say it would be spontaneous.

So what do you all think of the evidence in this case and how it relates to it being a murder of premeditation or spontaneity? I ask this because it seems to me that there needs to be some alignment between the two (motive vs. planning) and I'm not sure that I see it.

 

[Mary_H]

Well we certainly agree on 1 thing - I never suggested it was hyperbolic.

I think the comparison is 'beyond hyperbole' on the basis of the situation, you and others disagree.
There we have it.

As regards the 'Jesus Christ' issue:
Leaving aside that the debate here is not of the form "all convictions are safe" the comparison would certainly be met with initial surprise in some quarters but a moments reflection shows similarities.

The faith based certainty of the 'innocentsi' based on belief in myths and a lack of knowledge of the case spring to mind.

As far as we an tell the figure your Jesus Christ was based on 'suffered the extreme penalty' - possibly for insurrection.
As for guilt or innocence [under whose law - Roman ?] or indeed much more than the above - who can say at this remove.

.

Would you be willing to clarify what you mean by "beyond hyperbole?"

We don't need to talk about faith. Jesus Christ is a historical figure. You seem to have missed my point about keeping categories separate. Would it work better for you if used the example of Galileo Gallilei or Desmond Tutu?

You're right, the debate here is not of the form "all convictions are safe," for the most part, colonelhall's arguments sometimes excepted. It does happen in many other forums, though.

With reference to your last sentence, if you would like to elevate the level of debate even higher, then I would suggest we skip over the part about how laws are relative to cultures, and head right on into a discussion of whether the procedures used by Mignini and his staff were ethical, from as objective a standpoint as we can establish.

 

[platonov]

Hi all, I noticed there was again some discussion over the last week regarding the infamous interrogation of Amanda from December 2007 in which she supposedly nearly gave herself up. I had this debate with Fulcanelli some time back, in which I disagreed that this was at all the case since we DO have recording of that session. I'm posting it again for all here to see that Amanda again sticks to her same story and that there is no way to deduce from it that she was about to "come clean".

http://www.video.mediaset.it/video/.../71545/rewind---delitto-di-perugia---iii.html

P.S. I've noticed Safari doesn't play nice with this video. Firefox should work.

Thanks Malkmus!

I think it was platonov who recently proposed that Amanda refused to talk about the accusation of Patrick during that interrogation. I think the link you posted settles it for good. She definitely talks about it. What she says is basically the same that she said during trial. Also - she's speaking normally. There is no hysterics or "vedo i flash! vedo i flash!" as some media suggested or uncritically repeated after what the prosecution insinuated.

It does appear, at face value, that this December 2007 interrogation has been misinterpreted by some (either accidentally or deliberately....), in order to promote a certain agenda. A generous way to describe this might be "confirmation bias", but there are also less generous explanations.

We already had that video with about 30 ? secs of the relevant** audio posted by Katy Did last week.

Some of you obviously missed it - attention to detail guys.

The issue last week was not about a potential confession (although that's an intriguing piece of speculation) rather what AK had to say when faced with the chance to explain the 'internalized false confession' 6 weeks later in the presence of her laywer.

As confirmed by her 2009 testimony at the hands of her own lawyer (see earlier posts) when pressed for clarification the interrogation was terminated by AK / her lawyer.


What's the big mystery ???

"Confirmation bias" I wouldnt accuse anyone of that - inability to parse text and take it in perhaps.

Video could be the way to go ; Roll on Loose Change VI - The Italian Angle

 

[RoseMontague]

I see it differently (that does not surprise you?). On page 74 of the motivations Massei is summarizing the questions presented to Amanda by Comodi, including the general time of the first call to Amanda's mother, and Amanda's answers.

Massei then goes on to state on page 95 of the motivations that the first call to Amanda's mother was made at 12:47. So see, Massei wasn't tricked. And he made sure the time of the call was documented correctly in the motivations.

I don't think Amanda was tricked because she did not remember the call and did not allude to remembering the call during her testimony.

I am curious though, why does Comodi have to be lying or playing dirty tricks?

I think it is the before anything happened part that I disagree with and of course Massei's real stretch of a perplex. She succeeded in confusing Amanda because there was some indication that she thought they might still have been at Raffaele's at that time and Comodi cut her off.

 

[Mary_H]

Yes - I made that very point over the weekend. It didn't receive any kind of response......

Oops, sorry -- I guess I missed it. Don't you just hate it when other people make it look like they thought of something you already thought of? I do.

 

[RoseMontague]

Maybe I thought right then that there was something strange, because at that moment, when I went to Raffaele's place, I did think there was something strange, but I didn't know what to think.

Was she at Raffaele's place at noon? Did she call her Mom while she was at Raffaele's?

 

[treehorn]

Real world issues are still keeping me quite busy at present, and given the demonstrated character and behaviour of a certain prominent subset of guilters I'm still not going to post personally identifying information where you can see it.

Ah! Good to see you are still with us, Lowe.

Alas, I can't see how letting us know a little something about your occupation and/or education - in very, very general terms - would be tantamount to revealing "personally identifying information."

Simply confirming whether or not you have a MD is hardly the same thing as giving out your home address!

It's not a trivial point: Your bold, doubt-free assertions about the nature of the human intestine/ displacement of alimentary matter within that organ during autopsy were not supported by reference to 'peer-reviewed scientific journals' and, as such, must be backed by relevant occupational experience/ expertise in order to be taken seriously.

Are you a MD?

If not, how on earth are you able to legitimately claim ANYTHING about the physical properties of the human intestine, during autopsy, with certainty sufficient to undermine the testimony of medical doctors?

 

[Mary_H]

Ah! Good to see you are still with us, Lowe.

Alas, I can't see how letting us know a little something about your occupation and/or education - in very, very general terms - would be tantamount to revealing "personally identifying information."

Simply confirming whether or not you have a MD is hardly the same thing as giving out your home address!

It's not a trivial point: Your bold, doubt-free assertions about the nature of the human intestine/ displacement of alimentary matter within that organ during autopsy were not supported by reference to 'peer-reviewed scientific journals' and, as such, must be backed by relevant occupational experience/ expertise in order to be taken seriously.

Are you a MD?

If not, how on earth are you able to legitimately claim ANYTHING about the physical properties of the human intestine, during autopsy, with certainty sufficient to undermine the testimony of medical doctors?

Perhaps the question should be whether there is anyone here who is qualified to credibly challenge Kevin Lowe's specific assertions. If so, they should feel free to do so, with supporting evidence.

 

[RoseMontague]

I agree with Mary_H (nice to have you back). I also don't think it is appropriate to demand a poster produce personal information.