Continuation - Discussion of the Amanda Knox case

[Charlie Wilkes]

How can a confession that was extracted from a person using brainwashing techniques (sleep deprevation) and techniques of torture (threats, intimidation, and other deprevations) could then be sued for slander for something leaked by the police? Seems like the Italian police and the Italian media are the only ones guilty of libel.

The USA has a stronger constitutional right to free speech that protects individuals from such. However, when you couple that with the fact no lawyer was present, that is totally foreign to me. These libel/slander charges in another era would be called acts of barbarism.

In the USA, the information wouldn't have been leaked because disinterested parties cannot get the police reports. In the USA, the people that repeat a libel/slander are also guilty - the newspapers and police would also be guilty. In the USA, more is protected as freedom of speech. In the USA, a lawyer would have been present. In the USA, this type of interrogation is illegal.

The audacious have even suggested that the Italian system is better than the system in the USA. Anybody recall any such slander/libel charges EVER being filed in the USA or any other country?

I would not compare the US system favorably with Italy's. First of all, Amanda is better off at Capenne than she would be at most US prisons. Second, US courts and juries have presided over many, many egregious cases of wrongful prosecution. What strikes me most is how similar they are to this case in terms of the way officials try to manipulate the evidence and hide the truth, digging their heels in deeper as initial public support gives way to skepticism and, eventually, outrage and disgust.

 

[Scorpion NITE]

Fixed!

Thanks for that...lol

With regards to the recent discussions amongst others over 'victim status' etc, I fully agree with your earlier sentiments addressed to Alt+F4 etc.

My opinion most definitely sides with the majority - Meredith's tragic death (murder) makes her the victim first and foremost. This should be beyond dispute. The suffering her family have and will experience should also be beyond dispute.

However, I am also extremely disgusted by the constant bleatings by certain 'Colpevolisti' who associate the belief that Amanda/Raffaele could be innocent with a disrespect for MK and family. This is an outrageous slur and a blatant insulting lie imho.

Amanda and Raffaele can also be referred to as victims if you believe that they are innocent.

There is no shame in that.

Far from it.

 

[Charlie Wilkes]

Your report was interesting. But I just point out: Comodi di not "ask for common sense".
Maybe you interpreted her statements as a call for common sense. But it's your interpretation. She didn't explicitly ask for common sense in interpreting the result.

Andrea Vogt is the one who described Comodi's presentation as an appeal for common sense:

http://www.seattlepi.com/local/412538_knox21.html

In my opinion the luminol prints can be assessed to be in blood with no doubt on logical grounds, from the analysis of their physical features.

Whatever logical grounds you may apply, the fact remains that the footprints tested negative for blood as well as Meredith's DNA.

 

[Kaosium]

Eeeeek!

I sincerely hope that no-one misconstrues that and thinks it was I stating that!!

I hope Rudy tells the truth too. Amanda and Raffaele weren't around when Meredith was murdered. He's said it before, and there was no reason to lie for them.

I think the most telling facet of this debate is that there seems to be few reasonable objections left to the Lone Wolf theory, and no one--not even the Massei report--can explain logically and within the bounds of science and reason how Amanda and Raffaele were involved in this crime.

There's no evidence, no rational theory, no reasonable motive and the whole thing suddenly makes sense if you assume that it is possible that Amanda and Raffaele are innocent. Sniping at the esoteric outside the scope of actually proving guilt of anything outside 'lying' when it is impossible to string those 'lies' and a 'confession/accusation' together to form a coherent whole is a pretty fair indicator there's no guilt to be found here, at least of murder.

 

[Justinian2]

<snip>
I find it even more offensive that many of these same people seem to equate any belief in Knox's/Sollecito's non-guilt with a consequent lack of compassion for Meredith and the Kerchers.

I speak for myself, but I hope I'm representing many other people's feelings, when I say that Meredith's death was a horrible tragedy, and a senseless waste of a promising young life. And that her family have coped with the incredible pain of losing her - in such a horrific manner and at such an age - with amazing dignity and poise (although they must have gone through dreadful periods behind closed doors).

<snip>

.

If I spent my time grieving for each young death, I could not live and love life.

While I said that I don't grieve for Meredith, I do recognize that the sudden death of a child is THE most devastating thing that can happen to a family. I don't dwell on her death anymore than I dwell on the lives of young soldiers who gave their lives defending their country. Yes, young death is a tragedy! No doubt about that. When someone dies at 90 years, that is sad. A young death is sad AND tragic. This death was young & tragic.

Moreover it makes us mad that the society of Perugia can foster a young man that will kill for a few hundred bucks.

 

[Malkmus]

Your report was interesting. But I just point out: Comodi di not "ask for common sense".
Maybe you interpreted her statements as a call for common sense. But it's your interpretation. She didn't explicitly ask for common sense in interpreting the result.

In my opinion the luminol prints can be assessed to be in blood with no doubt on logical grounds, from the analysis of their physical features.

Machiavelli, I've seen your theory that the Luminol prints were not made from stepping in Meredith's blood in her bedroom, but rather from cleaning the blood in the shower, which is why they are faint. I would like to hear your "analysis of their physical features", as all I've only read your "anecdotal" reasoning of why they must have been made in blood.

 

[Justinian2]

I would not compare the US system favorably with Italy's. First of all, Amanda is better off at Capenne than she would be at most US prisons. Second, US courts and juries have presided over many, many egregious cases of wrongful prosecution. What strikes me most is how similar they are to this case in terms of the way officials try to manipulate the evidence and hide the truth, digging their heels in deeper as initial public support gives way to skepticism and, eventually, outrage and disgust.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Guantanamo_Bay_detention_camp

If you're talking about the justice at Guantanamo Bay, then I agree.

Italy may have better prisons, but being locked in a bathroom all day long is nobody's idea of fun - no matter how great the bathroom.

The USA has some pretty good bathroom prisons too - especially for the movie stars.

What strikes me most is how similar they are to this case in terms of the way officials try to manipulate the evidence and hide the truth, digging their heels in deeper as initial public support gives way to skepticism and, eventually, outrage and disgust.

Sad, but true.

 

[Sherlock Holmes]

I hope Rudy tells the truth too. Amanda and Raffaele weren't around when Meredith was murdered. He's said it before, and there was no reason to lie for them.

Exacty, why is Rudy lying when he said they were both there, what could he possible have to gain by lying about them, he hates them so much he wants them to spend most of their life in jail, knowing they are innocent. I thought Rudy likes Amanda and never met RS. If those two murderers are innocent, what is Rudy's thinking then???? Makes no sense at all......

 

[Kaosium]

Exacty, why is Rudy lying when he said they were both there, what could he possible have to gain by lying about them, he hates them so much he wants them to spend most of their life in jail, knowing they are innocent. I thought Rudy likes Amanda and never met RS. If those two murderers are innocent, what is Rudy's thinking then???? Makes no sense at all......

Oh yes it does, look at Rudy's sentence. It's very easy to understand why he'd want to 'play ball with the law.'

On the other hand him 'lying' for them as he did early on and to his cellmate is inexplicable. Can you think of a reason that he'd do that?

 

[Malkmus]

Exactly, why is Rudy lying when he said they were both there, what could he possible have to gain by lying about them,

Because no one bought his idiotic story about some random person killing Meredith while he was on the toilet. So he changed his story.

 

[Sherlock Holmes]

Because no one bought his idiotic story about some random person killing Meredith while he was on the toilet. So he changed his story.

Sorry guys, he's gaining nothing by saying they were there and the only reason he's saying they were there is because they were and he's not going to jail alone for a murder all 3 had a hand in. I don't blame him one bit either...

 

[Machiavelli]

That last sentence is extraordinary. I wish you'd been able to say that in court. "From the analysis of their physical features", you are in no doubt that the prints were made in blood? Care to......erm....elaborate?

I have no doubt on this piece of evidence. I can say I have no doubts, I could say I have no reasonable doubt and that even in the case cartanity was not 100%, this would not make them go away from the evidence set. But I can say that my certainity is reasonably approximate to 100%.

I have never written a detailed analysis of the luminol prints on any blog. I don't think I am going to post my opinion soon. But I think it is possible for others to make the same reasonings and draw the same conclusions, so I just wait to see what people say. Anyway, aside from the physical features of the footprints -which lead to compelling conclusions - there is another important factor which is wrongly assessed and underestimated by innocentisti, which is the failure of the defence to indicate an alternative substance. The skim on this element is a grave misunderstanding of the concept of burden of proof. This doesn't work in a simplistic way in the Italian trial. The parties - including the judges - are committed to be more active in the trial compared to the US, they have various "burdens" in this system beyond the burden of proof for the accusation, and these are overlooked by people on the the innocent side.

 

[Mary_H]

Sorry guys, he's gaining nothing by saying they were there and the only reason he's saying they were there is because they were and he's not going to jail alone for a murder all 3 had a hand in. I don't blame him one bit either...

He's saying they were there because his lawyers instructed him to say they were there. Notice how it got him a greatly reduced sentence.

It was March 2008 before he actually claimed they were there. Why not claim it before that if it were true?

 

[Machiavelli]

Sorry guys, he's gaining nothing by saying they were there and the only reason he's saying they were there is because they were and he's not going to jail alone for a murder all 3 had a hand in. I don't blame him one bit either...

That's right. Rudy has nothing to gain by accusing innocent people. At this stage of the process he would actually gain something if, they being innocent, he makes a confession and exculpates them. His prison term cannot be increased and the verdict will soon be definitive. In this system he will have to deal with judges along his 16 years term, and a confession with exculpatory effect on innocent people is very effective to access privileges that are very difficult to gain without credible confession.

 

[Sherlock Holmes]

He's saying they were there because his lawyers instructed him to say they were there. Notice how it got him a greatly reduced sentence.

It was March 2008 before he actually claimed they were there. Why not claim it before that if it were true?

Hi Mary, long time no hear. I can look at most things from both sides, so let me get this straight, his lawyers told him to accuse two innocent people?

 

[Kaosium]

Sorry guys, he's gaining nothing by saying they were there and the only reason he's saying they were there is because they were and he's not going to jail alone for a murder all 3 had a hand in. I don't blame him one bit either...

How long is Rudy's sentence now? It wasn't appealed by the prosecution like Amanda's and Raffaele's was, who are both now facing life in prison. Gee, I wonder why that was?

Now, why would he say before that Amanda and Raffaele weren't there, and then we have his cellmate saying he admitted that they weren't to him, too? What possible reason would Rudy 'lie' to cover up for Amanda and Raffaele at any point?

That's one reason I said everything makes more sense if you presume there's a possibility Amanda and Raffaele are innocent. You can analyze the entire ordeal and come to a coherent whole, whereas with the presumption of guilt misdirections are needed as everything comes out ass-backwards. You can continue to ignore the real question here, but it doesn't change the fact that it's questions like this that make a coherent rational story of them being guilty impossible to produce.

I wondered about that for a while; how could it be that the police got so much wrong? Then it dawned on me: they got exactly what you'd expect if they tried to gather 'evidence' of innocent people.

 

[Machiavelli]

He's saying they were there because his lawyers instructed him to say they were there. Notice how it got him a greatly reduced sentence.

It was March 2008 before he actually claimed they were there. Why not claim it before that if it were true?

One reason why he got a reduction from 30 to 16 years, is because meanwhile Amanda Knox and Raffaele Sollecito had mitigation and their murder sentences were reduced from life to 24.
The reduction for Rudy is the exactly same, but it makes 16 years in his kind of trial.

 

[Sherlock Holmes]

He's saying they were there because his lawyers instructed him to say they were there. Notice how it got him a greatly reduced sentence.

It was March 2008 before he actually claimed they were there. Why not claim it before that if it were true?

Sorry double post

 

[Machiavelli]

How long is Rudy's sentence now? It wasn't appealed by the prosecution like Amanda's and Raffaele's was, who are both now facing life in prison. Gee, I wonder why that was?

...

Because the prosecutor is a different one, but above all because there are no appeals left in his process. There is only the Supreme Court, but it is only procedural, and the prosecution cannot appeal of the lenght of penalty on a guilty verdict in a short trial, and cannot appeal in the meritis at all at this stage.

 

[Mary_H]

That's right. Rudy has nothing to gain by accusing innocent people. At this stage of the process he would actually gain something if, they being innocent, he makes a confession and exculpates them. His prison term cannot be increased and the verdict will soon be definitive. In this system he will have to deal with judges along his 16 years term, and a confession with exculpatory effect on innocent people is very effective to access privileges that are very difficult to gain without credible confession.

It might benefit him at this stage of the process, but at the initial stage of the process it most benefited him to claim himself completely innocent, as there was always a chance he might be acquitted. As such, he had everything to gain by accusing someone else of the murder. He had to accuse innocent people; that was the only kind of people available to accuse.

If confessing now gains him privileges, then maybe his lawyers will advise him to do that, especially since his sentence can't be increased. The sense of taking that step probably will depend on the strength of the evidence at the appeal.

I can see why Rudy would be resistant to confessing, though. It seems to be very important to him to hold that he didn't kill Meredith. To confess would entail coming to grips with having killed her, as well as having to admit he is liar.