Continuation - Discussion of the Amanda Knox case

[Matthew Best]

Except for your rather coy evasion of Knox's complete reversal of her prior statements when she placed herself at the scene after days of denying any involvement you seem to be agreeing with what I said.

I have no idea what you're suggesting ("coy evasion" indeed!). I am agreeing that false confessions can be and have been made in other cases, and that Knox's confession bears the hallmarks of such false confessions and does not demonstrate any knowledge of the crime scene that would prove it wasn't one.

 

[Dan O.]

The only connection is a scream.

Every instance of evidence that Meredith screamed that night traces back to the mouth of the interrogators on Nov 6th. We have from Amanda's testimony:

So when I was with the police, they asked if I heard Meredith's scream.
I said no. They said "But if you were there, how could you not hear her
scream? If you were there?" I said "Look, I don't know, maybe I had my ears
covered." So they said "Fine, we'll write that down. Fine."
​

Is there any testimony from the police that contradicts Amanda's statements? Will the recording of that interrogation ever surface to set the record straight?

By November 8th, the story of the scream was all over the press. Before November 8th there was not a single witness that reported hearing a scream. After November 8th we see stories emerge that conform to the "reported facts".

The purported scream does not connect anything except another example of contaminating the evidence by the Italian authorities.

 

[Dan O.]

Really? So if I was walking down a street in Rome, saw a bank robbery and didn't report it I would be charged with robbing that bank?

...and the bank robber was your boss whom you had sent a text message shortly before the robbery... and you walked to the bank with that boss... and the next day when the police asked what you were doing in the area you said you were home watching movies... would you be guilty as sin culpable for the crime under Italian Law?

 

[Alt+F4]

...and the bank robber was your boss whom you had sent a text message shortly before the robbery... and you walked to the bank with that boss... and the next day when the police asked what you were doing in the area you said you were home watching movies... would you be guilty as sin culpable for the crime under Italian Law?

You're moving the goalposts Dan. You added no qualifiers to your original statement:

As I understand it, being witness to a crime and not reporting it makes one culpable for that crime under Italian law.

So is this true?

 

[Dan O.]

You're moving the goalposts Dan. You added no qualifiers to your original statement:

As I understand it, being witness to a crime and not reporting it makes one culpable for that crime under Italian law.

So is this true?

I was imprecise. All I added was common knowledge of the events that you should have already known. If you are concerned about the exact details of the law I suggest that you look it up for yourself.

The discussion is about Amanda's false confession. If what she said in that interrogation was not taken as a confession to a crime then what was she arrested for?

 

[Alt+F4]

If you are concerned about the exact details of the law I suggest that you look it up for yourself.

You made the claim, you should back it up or retract it.

The discussion is about Amanda's false confession. If what she said in that interrogation was not taken as a confession to a crime then what was she arrested for?

If this "confession" was the basis for the arrest, then why did the police RS at that time too? Why didn't they just release her after PL's alibi came to light?

 

[Dan O.]

I was imprecise. All I added was common knowledge of the events that you should have already known. If you are concerned about the exact details of the law I suggest that you look it up for yourself.

You made the claim, you should back it up or retract it.

Try reading my full statement next time. Your troll for a fight has no legs.

The discussion is about Amanda's false confession. If what she said in that interrogation was not taken as a confession to a crime then what was she arrested for?

If this "confession" was the basis for the arrest, then why did the police <?> RS at that time too?

I see you too are having difficulty coming up with word for what the police did that night. Why exactly did they <?> Raffaele? What evidence did they have?

Why didn't they just release her after PL's alibi came to light?

That is a very good question. Someone should ask the Italian authorities.

 

[Alt+F4]

I had previously posted a link to a study of 40 false confessions many of which contained transcripts, testimony, and interviews. Some of the confirmatory information on details was shown to have been fed to the suspect during interrogation.

I assume that in those 40 cases someone made a false confession that they committed the crime and was then wrongly convicted. In any of those 40 cases did the accused only confess to being present at the scene of the crime but did not confess to the actual crime itself?

 

[Alt+F4]

I see you too are having difficulty coming up with word for what the police did that night. Why exactly did they <?> Raffaele? What evidence did they have?

I guess it had something to do with the fact that his story kept changing.

That is a very good question. Someone should ask the Italian authorities.

Poor Amanda, she must really have a lousy defense if her lawyers couldn't even find out why she was arrested.

 

[Dan O.]

I guess it had something to do with the fact that his story kept changing.

Now you are making a claim (though we've seen this mole repeated plenty of times in the Guilters Chronicles). Try backing up (with references) the changes in Raffaele's story.

 

[Alt+F4]

Now you are making a claim (though we've seen this mole repeated plenty of times in the Guilters Chronicles). Try backing up (with references) the changes in Raffaele's story.

If you are concerned about the exact details of his statements then I suggest that you look it up for yourself. See how easy that is?

 

[RoseMontague]

Here is the link containing the transcripts of the various confessions, interrogations and/or testimomy in those 40 false confessions. Look at Linscott for example and go to page 33/34 for a list of the things he had wrong about what happened, yet his confession was accepted.

http://www.law.virginia.edu/html/librarysite/garrett_falseconfess.htm

 

[Alt+F4]

Here is the link containing the transcripts of the various confessions, interrogations and/or testimomy in those 40 false confessions. Look at Linscott for example and go to page 33/34 for a list of the things he had wrong about what happened, yet his confession was accepted.

http://www.law.virginia.edu/html/librarysite/garrett_falseconfess.htm

Have to run out now so I only had time to read the abstract. The 40 cases (39 actually, one case had no information at all) all involved men who falsely confessed to rapes and murders and were later exonerated through DNA. How does this relate to the Amanda Knox case? She never confessed to murder. The only thing she confessed to was being at the scene of the murder.

 

[RoseMontague]

I assume that in those 40 cases someone made a false confession that they committed the crime and was then wrongly convicted. In any of those 40 cases did the accused only confess to being present at the scene of the crime but did not confess to the actual crime itself?

Several of them actually if I remember correctly several of them also describe the experience as a dream. Joanne Taylor was convinced she had mental telepathy after getting the details right. Of course the cops had showed her video of the crime scene and let her look at the statements of the other defendants. LOL.

These things as well as the 70 page SSRN study it links to make for fascinating reading. I never got all the way through all the various testimonies and transcripts but do revisit it on occasion.

 

[Malkmus]

Have to run out now so I only had time to read the abstract. The 40 cases (39 actually, one case had no information at all) all involved men who falsely confessed to rapes and murders and were later exonerated through DNA. How does this relate to the Amanda Knox case? She never confessed to murder. The only thing she confessed to was being at the scene of the murder.

Alt, you seem to think that you can somehow argue that Amanda's statements to the police that night were genuine and had nothing to do with coercion by playing some sort of semantics game here. Why don't we put aside all the statistics and terminology here and just boil it down to what it is: Amanda said she was present at the cottage the night of the murder. This landed her in jail. Many of us here think there is enough evidence to believe that Amanda was pressured in to making this statement and that it was not a willful attempt to mislead the investigation. Instead of arguing the meaning of "false confession" can you and Quadraginta state why you believe Amanda's statements that night were made on her own in an attempt to mislead the police? From Amanda's testimony of how she was lead to say what she said, the lack of a recording, her denial of a lawyer during said interrogation, and her incredibly non-detailed account of what happened that night, how can you say with certainty that what she said was done by her own free will?

 

[Dan O.]

If you are concerned about the exact details of his statements then I suggest that you look it up for yourself. See how easy that is?

I have searched for the sources of the misinformation that gets propagated by the guilters clan. If you want to be associated with skeptics that seek the truth instead of guilters that spread lies then you would be well advised to do some research.


One source of the changing story mime is the purported interview with Raffaele printed in the Daily Mail on the 4th or 5th. The story said that Amanda and Raffaele went partying on the night of the 1st which contradicted Raffaeles statements to the police that he and Amanda spent the night at his apartment. The details of that news story just happen to match the stories of what both Amanda and Raffaele had been telling the police of their activities for Halloween night.

Would Raffaele suddenly change his story that he had already conveyed to the police on multiple occasions? Or do you think it might just be possible that the reporter mixed up the dates?!


Another source of the changing story is the claim the during the interviews on the 5/6th Raffaele dropped his alibi for Amanda and said that she returned to the cottage. If you read what Raffaele actually says you will see that it is nothing more than a hypothetical conjecture where Raffaele is saying that Amanda could have left while he was asleep. He also says he doesn't believe this is possible.


Is that enough to refresh your memory or are you going to act like a troll and demand citations?

 

[Diastole]

The luminol results in Raffaele's bathroom could certainly be made with substances commonly found in a bathroom, the blood in urine as well as fecal matter both react with luminol.

Danceme, is there some reason (other than menstruation) to presume that Knox or Sollecito may have had detectable levels of blood in their urine or faeces? In the absence of any history of GI or urological disease, or recent abdominal trauma, this would not be an expected finding.

 

[RoseMontague]

Have to run out now so I only had time to read the abstract. The 40 cases (39 actually, one case had no information at all) all involved men who falsely confessed to rapes and murders and were later exonerated through DNA. How does this relate to the Amanda Knox case? She never confessed to murder. The only thing she confessed to was being at the scene of the murder.

See my previous post and the half dozen posts I have previously listed the many comparisons to Amanda Knox and this study. Then read the study itself (70 pages), then if any of the cases mentioned interest you read the various documents regarding those cases. I am certain you will find many things in common.

 

[Justinian2]

Every instance of evidence that Meredith screamed that night traces back to the mouth of the interrogators on Nov 6th. We have from Amanda's testimony:

So when I was with the police, they asked if I heard Meredith's scream.
I said no. They said "But if you were there, how could you not hear her
scream? If you were there?" I said "Look, I don't know, maybe I had my ears
covered." So they said "Fine, we'll write that down. Fine."
​

Is there any testimony from the police that contradicts Amanda's statements? Will the recording of that interrogation ever surface to set the record straight?

By November 8th, the story of the scream was all over the press. Before November 8th there was not a single witness that reported hearing a scream. After November 8th we see stories emerge that conform to the "reported facts".

The purported scream does not connect anything except another example of contaminating the evidence by the Italian authorities.

So when I was with the police, they asked if I heard Meredith's scream.
I said no. They said "But if you were there, how could you not hear her
scream? If you were there?" I said "Look, I don't know, maybe I had my ears
covered." So they said "Fine, we'll write that down. Fine."
​

That's a successful appeal to my emotions even though it wasn't technically an appeal to emotion! It makes me grief stricken to think that type of interrogation and reporting exists among homo sapiens! Something's wrong with our species. I'm obviously referring to the person that said: "Fine, we'll write that down."

 

[RoseMontague]

I have searched for the sources of the misinformation that gets propagated by the guilters clan. If you want to be associated with skeptics that seek the truth instead of guilters that spread lies then you would be well advised to do some research.


One source of the changing story mime is the purported interview with Raffaele printed in the Daily Mail on the 4th or 5th. The story said that Amanda and Raffaele went partying on the night of the 1st which contradicted Raffaeles statements to the police that he and Amanda spent the night at his apartment. The details of that news story just happen to match the stories of what both Amanda and Raffaele had been telling the police of their activities for Halloween night.

Would Raffaele suddenly change his story that he had already conveyed to the police on multiple occasions? Or do you think it might just be possible that the reporter mixed up the dates?!


Another source of the changing story is the claim the during the interviews on the 5/6th Raffaele dropped his alibi for Amanda and said that she returned to the cottage. If you read what Raffaele actually says you will see that it is nothing more than a hypothetical conjecture where Raffaele is saying that Amanda could have left while he was asleep. He also says he doesn't believe this is possible.


Is that enough to refresh your memory or are you going to act like a troll and demand citations?

Thanks Dan O.

I believe it was someone else here that even made a pretty strong case that the Daily Mail interview was not even with Raffaele at all (Possibly Mary_H?). The only other thing you have is the bit about the pricking of the finger because he pretty much took the advice of his lawyers to be silent after that. The many changing stories of Raffaele are exaggerated, in my opinion as well.