Continuation - Discussion of the Amanda Knox case

[Kaosium]

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.

Are you saying there would be no legal repercussions if he admitted to lying in court and helping to convict two innocent people? It seems like you're trying to suggest he could only gain. Then why wouldn't he just change his story back again and save himself some time in prison? I can't believe it works like that in Italy. That someone could lie and convict someone else and end up with a fraction of their sentence, then turn around and get another sentence reduction by then claiming they weren't involved.

Yes, he did gain. His sentence wasn't appealed, he only ended up with sixteen years which is subject to future reductions as well. What were the grounds Amanda and Raffaele's sentences were appealed by the prosecution again?

Now, back to the real question, the one that illustrates perfectly why not allowing for the possibility that they are innocent one has to constantly avoid the questions like: Why did Rudy ever say Amanda and Raffaele weren't there, or refuse to say they were, when it sure could have helped him, which in fact it did when he went on the stand and said they were?

 

[Machiavelli]

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.

However, he didn't explicitly accuse AK and RS of murder. He could have done it.

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.

Maybe. But maybe, could be, that he actually confesses.

 

[quadraginta]

Hmmm. I wonder how many different people in Perugia lived within 1min15 walking distance of Sollecito's front door? I wonder how many of them he knew? I wonder how many of the people who lived in the building NEXT DOOR he knew?

To suggest that Sollecito and Guede MUST have known each other because they lived within 1min15 of each other, and probably used the same road (Corso Garibaldi) a couple of times per day* is patently ridiculous, and demonstrative (once again) of high levels of confirmation bias.

* And almost certainly at pretty differing times, especially during daylight hours - Sollecito was studying a regular uni course, while Guede was out or work.

I must have overlooked the post which offered this suggestion. Could you point it out for me?

 

[Mary_H]

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?

Hi Sherlock; lovely to see you, as always.

There is no doubt his lawyers took advantage of the situation that had been handed to them on a silver platter by the authorities, who already had Amanda and Raffaele in custody when Rudy was arrested. Rudy denied the crime from Day One, but first he tried to pin it on the bushy-haired stranger. In time, the stranger grew to be two people, and by the time some months had passed, those two people magically became Amanda and Raffaele.

If you were a young man in Rudy's position, wouldn't you open your mind to being persuaded that maybe you didn't commit such a heinous act after all? People complain that Amanda couldn't possibly have had her mind changed in a couple of hours, but would they be willing to admit Rudy could have had his mind changed over the course of four months, especially if it meant he might not have to go to prison?

 

[Sherlock Holmes]

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.

Exactly, but try explaining that to most on here, it's called tunnel vision, they can only see it one way. By the way, one really incriminating thing about the FOAKers is, try and count how many times and people they claim, lied, mis-remembered, botched the investigation somehow or were just completely inept, the number is staggering high, but I guess thats about what it take if you want to believe in their innocense....

 

[Machiavelli]

Are you saying there would be no legal repercussions if he admitted to lying in court and helping to convict two innocent people? ..

Actually lying is his legal right. For helping to convict, he actually didn't help much: they werre already in prison, and he didn't testify in their trial. I don't think he will have ripercussions.

 

[Sherlock Holmes]

Hi Sherlock; lovely to see you, as always.

There is no doubt his lawyers took advantage of the situation that had been handed to them on a silver platter by the authorities, who already had Amanda and Raffaele in custody when Rudy was arrested. Rudy denied the crime from Day One, but first he tried to pin it on the bushy-haired stranger. In time, the stranger grew to be two people, and by the time some months had passed, those two people magically became Amanda and Raffaele.

If you were a young man in Rudy's position, wouldn't you open your mind to being persuaded that maybe you didn't commit such a heinous act after all? People complain that Amanda couldn't possibly have had her mind changed in a couple of hours, but would they be willing to admit Rudy could have had his mind changed over the course of four months, especially if it meant he might not have to go to prison?

I can agree with part of that, but right now, if they are innocent, why doesn't he tell everyone, what does he have to gain, his sentence won't be incresaed, people won't think less of him, just the opposite. He has nothing to lose, he liked Amanda, remember, he doesn't even know RS, WHY send those two to jail for half their lives if he has nothing to gain. However, if they did have some envolvement, I can surley see why he doesn't want to see them walk free and he alone go to jail.

 

[Mary_H]

However, he didn't explicitly accuse AK and RS of murder. He could have done it.

True. That's what raises questions about why he did it later.

Maybe. But maybe, could be, that he actually confesses.

That would be ideal.

 

[Machiavelli]

Yes, he did gain. His sentence wasn't appealed, he only ended up with sixteen years which is subject to future reductions as well. What were the grounds Amanda and Raffaele's sentences were appealed by the prosecution again? ...

You don't know what you are talking about. He got the maximum in the first trial, the prosecution had no ground for appeal. His 16 year sentence is not subject to further reductions, only to the benefits for the assessment on his doing well. The grounds to appeal Amanda and Raffaele are obvious: they got the same reduction in their first trial, so the prosecution can appeal.

 

[Kaosium]

Exactly, but try explaining that to most on here, it's called tunnel vision, they can only see it one way. By the way, one really incriminating thing about the FOAKers is, try and count how many times and people they claim, lied, mis-remembered, botched the investigation somehow or were just completely inept, the number is staggering high, but I guess thats about what it take if you want to believe in their innocense....

Accusing the 'opponent' of what you're guilty of is one of the oldest rhetorical tricks in the game, and it still doesn't answer the actual question raised: why would Rudy at any point not try and implicate Amanda and Raffaele when it was in his benefit to do so?

Muddying the waters doesn't answer that question, it's just...muddying the waters.

 

[Mary_H]

I can agree with part of that, but right now, if they are innocent, why doesn't he tell everyone, what does he have to gain, his sentence won't be incresaed, people won't think less of him, just the opposite. He has nothing to lose, he liked Amanda, remember, he doesn't even know RS, WHY send those two to jail for half their lives if he has nothing to gain. However, if they did have some envolvement, I can surley see why he doesn't want to see them walk free and he alone go to jail.

At first I was going to say because of pride, as I said in my previous post -- that he doesn't want to see himself as a liar and a murderer. But upon reflection, I realize there must be a lot of pressure on him to keep things "as is." If he admits Amanda and Raffaele are innocent, the police, prosecution and forensics teams are going to have some 'splainin' to do.

 

[Kaosium]

You don't know what you are talking about. He got the maximum in the first trial, the prosecution had no ground for appeal. His 16 year sentence is not subject to further reductions, only to the benefits for the assessment on his doing well. The grounds to appeal Amanda and Raffaele are obvious: they got the same reduction in their first trial, so the prosecution can appeal.

The bottom line is Rudy may very well be out in the relatively near future and Amanda and Raffaele now potentially face 'life' in prison. Gee, that worked out well for him, didn't it?

Now, why would he have ever tried to avoid implicating Raffaele and Amanda? That's the question that must be avoided, isn't it?

That sort of thing is all over the timeline, which is why no coherent rational theory of their involvement can be constructed.

 

[Sherlock Holmes]

Accusing the 'opponent' of what you're guilty of is one of the oldest rhetorical tricks in the game, and it still doesn't answer the actual question raised: why would Rudy at any point not try and implicate Amanda and Raffaele when it was in his benefit to do so?

Muddying the waters doesn't answer that question, it's just...muddying the waters.

And how in the world did it benefit him to say it was Amanda and RS and not two stangers he did not know? He still got the max sentence, 30 years, so I'm guessing it didn't help at all.

 

[Kaosium]

And how in the world did it benefit him to say it was Amanda and RS and not two stangers he did not know? He still got the max sentence, 30 years, so I'm guessing it didn't help at all.

How many years is it before he's out? Bottom line here.

How did it benefit him? Giving the police and the powerful respected prosecutor what they wanted? Sure seemed to, didn't it?

Now, again, back to the real question that has to be avoided unless you will at least grant the possibility of innocence: why wouldn't Rudy have told at all times that Amanda and Raffaele were there?

It doesn't make sense, does it?

 

[Mary_H]

Exactly, but try explaining that to most on here, it's called tunnel vision, they can only see it one way. By the way, one really incriminating thing about the FOAKers is, try and count how many times and people they claim, lied, mis-remembered, botched the investigation somehow or were just completely inept, the number is staggering high, but I guess thats about what it take if you want to believe in their innocense....

It's not really that many people. It's more like this: Fabio Giobbi was suspicious of Amanda's behavior. He passed his suspicions along to Mignini, who is given to unconventional approaches to investigating crimes. Three days had passed since the crime; they had no leads. Was it possible the two kids who were first at the murder scene were involved? Yeah... maybe it was.

But wait, we think a back guy did it. That's okay, we found messages on Amanda's cell phone between her and a black guy. Let's go.

Mignini led the investigation; everyone took orders from him. If you were on his team and he were your supervisor, would you assume he had more information than you or would you defy him? Yes, there was lying, botching and fabrication of evidence, but most of it was in service to Giobbi's "investigative intuition" and Mignini's vision. It wasn't a conspiracy.

 

[Mary_H]

And how in the world did it benefit him to say it was Amanda and RS and not two stangers he did not know? He still got the max sentence, 30 years, so I'm guessing it didn't help at all.

Because the prosecution was building a case of evidence against Amanda and Raffaele. They had nothing on any strangers.

 

[samba]

I can agree with part of that, but right now, if they are innocent, why doesn't he tell everyone, what does he have to gain, his sentence won't be incresaed, people won't think less of him, just the opposite. He has nothing to lose, he liked Amanda, remember, he doesn't even know RS, WHY send those two to jail for half their lives if he has nothing to gain. However, if they did have some envolvement, I can surley see why he doesn't want to see them walk free and he alone go to jail.

And if AK and RS had some involvement, wouldn't they testify against each other to get a reduced sentence? It was a 6 day romance. Why would either one of them remain silent if it could benefit them?

 

[moodstream]

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.

For some reason, I thought a requirement of Guede's trial was an acceptance of the facts as presented by the prosecution. If Guede were to reveal that he alone killed Meredith, that AK/RS were not there, and confessed as I believe the crime played out, would he not be invalidating the basis under which the trial was allowed? Wouldn't that destroy his conviction in that court ( soon of course to be replaced with another based on the conviction).

 

[Malkmus]

Tunnel Vision

Exactly, but try explaining that to most on here, it's called tunnel vision, they can only see it one way. By the way, one really incriminating thing about the FOAKers is, try and count how many times and people they claim, lied, mis-remembered, botched the investigation somehow or were just completely inept, the number is staggering high, but I guess thats about what it take if you want to believe in their innocense....

Sherlock, what's funny is that the majority of "botches" and "lies" made by the police, are facts and not conjecture. The irony of your post is that the pro-guilt side are the ones who overlook all the well-documented errors made by police and overlook them because they believe Amanda and Raf have to be guilty.

Here are some examples of how "tunnel vision" is blinding the pro-guilt side:

1. Believing the Luminol prints are for a fact bloody footprints despite testing negative for blood, and despite the pesky conundrum that no Luminol prints of Amanda or Raf were found in the actual bedroom where the murder occurred. This, along with Amanda's DNA in the bathroom, offer the much more plausible explanation that since Amanda lived there it would only be natural to find her footprints and DNA there.

2. Believing the bathmat print is Rafaelle's despite the fact that Raf has an abnormally shaped big toe which is completely different in shape from the print, yet matches Rudy's print in numerous ways.

3. Believing the break-in was staged by Amanda and Raf despite the highly unlikely coincidence that it matches Rudy's m.o. of breaking into the law office just weeks prior.

4. Believing the double DNA knife is the murder weapon despite it testing negative for blood, and more importantly, that it requires believing in a bizarre scenario in which Amanda borrows from her boyfriend of a few days a large kitchen knife to keep in her purse.

5. Full faith in the police and their forensics results despite numerous documented mistakes such as attributing Rudy's shoeprint to Raf, destroying multiple hard drives, not running control tests, lying about their arrival time at the cottage, lying about entering the murder room before the carabinieri arrived, lying in court about the negative blood results, arresting Patrick without first interrogating him even though Amanda's story was not an eyewitness account of him committing the murder, etc...

6. Undying faith in witnesses despite contradictory statement by them, even one which gives Amanda and Raf an alibi.

7. Complete denial that Amanda's misremembering of details could be anything but malicious lies despite the fact that they wouldn't gain her anything and despite the fact that others in this case suffered the same problems.

8. Complete denial that Amanda's false confession could possibly be the result of coercion from the police, despite knowing that LE were convinced from the get-go that she had planned to meet someone the night of the murder and would not budge from that notion, despite the fact that Amanda knew Patrick had a cast iron alibi, despite the fact that false confessions are a documented occurrence, despite the fact that the interrogation was strangely not recorded when Mignini states he recorded all the witness and roommate interrogations, despite her being denied a lawyer when she requested one, despite the fact that she immediately afterwards wrote that she was unsure of what she had told the police.

9. Belief in a "Reefer Madness"-type scenario where smoking pot causes two young people to kill a friend despite no motive and without prior signs of violent tendencies. This has resulted in creating the lie that they were LSD and cocaine users.

10. Unquestioning faith in the court's decision, despite the fact that people have been wrongfully incarcerated and exonerated since the dawn of time.

11. Believing there was a clean-up despite no evidence of one.

12. Paranoia resulting in complete denial that anyone in the media could honestly advocate the pair's innocence, certainty that they must only be doing it for money reasons, and the subsequent character assassinations/ad hominem attacks that occur to suppress what they are saying (Hampikian, Dempsey, Waterbury, Moore, Heavey).

 

[Antony]

Wrong, there is a great, big way of comparing them. The Kercher family will never see their daughter/sister again. The Knox family has the hope that Amanda will be free one day. Get back to me when Meredith can be freed from her murder.



Wow, you have NO idea what the difference is between being dead and being in prison.

[/QUOTE]

You are the one making comparisons, not me.