Continuation - Discussion of the Amanda Knox case

[katy_did]

Raffaele says explicitly in his Diary that Amanda asked him to lie. There is no escaping that fact,

I'm not so sure about this; Katody may be right that the translation isn't quite accurate. The word Raffaele uses is 'indurre', for which I think the most neutral English translation would be 'induce'. Of course, nuances are always tricky as a non-native speaker, but certainly in English to 'induce' someone to do something doesn't necessarily mean that you set out to persuade them to do it. It often just means that you influenced them in some way, not necessarily consciously. For instance, say I bought a concert ticket and that 'induced' someone else to do the same. That certainly doesn't mean I told them to buy one nor that I consciously and deliberately persuaded them to do it.

In this case we don't really need to guess as to what Raffaele meant, because he's referring to what he said in the "second version" of his statements on the 5/6 November, and the police statement from that interrogation was leaked and published (thanks to Christiana for linking to it, I was looking for that everywhere...). The statement says:

In my previous declaration I said a load of crap because [Amanda] convinced me of her version of the facts and I didn't think about the contradictions.

Here, he's obviously not saying that Amanda told him to lie, he's saying that she influenced him by convincing him that her 'version' of what happened that night was true: i.e. that they were together all night. Had she actually told him to lie, there's no way he could've been 'convinced' that her version was the truth!

I think what happened that night is that the police told Raffaele they had 'hard evidence' placing Amanda at the cottage (as they had also told Amanda). They probably pointed out that since it was Thursday, Amanda must have left to go to work, and she had sent a text to her boss confirming she planned to meet him that night. Therefore she must have left the house - why was he covering for her? Faced with these contradictions, Raffaele concluded that when he and Amanda had talked about that evening and the questions the police were asking them, during which she no doubt talked and behaved as if she were with him all night, she was intentionally trying to mislead him by convincing him of 'her version' - which he initially believed, until faced with the "contradictions" presented to him by the police.

 

[Katody Matrass]

But there is a perfect coincidence between the outline of the mark and the shape of the bathmat decoration. This coincidence is too strong to ba casual.

No, it's not perfect. That mark only partially lies on the decoration, part of it is on the flat area.

But the foot also displays an array of incompatibilities with Rudy Guede's foot, which are visibly absent in the comparison with Sollecito's foot,

And vice versa - it has incompatibilities with Raffaele's where it corresponds to Guede.

The attribution to Rudy is not completely "free" in the reasoning, it must be bolstered with some element. If the footprint looks different from Rudy's that's a problem in itself, this finding cannot be replaced with a personal feeling neither.

Again the same can be said about the attribution to Raffaele.


You see, that's why I can't agree that reasoning is both good and objective. I also see further discussion of it as quite pointless. Unless someone claims the print excludes Rudy. Such wild claim must be refuted.

 

[Malkmus]

Nonsense. I did no such thing. If you think that I did, show me how so.

Fuji, you made the comparison that there isn't much physical evidence in either case, then stated:

I'm curious as to whether Steve Moore's perception of this evidentiary shortfall would also lead him to declare Spader's innocence.

This was followed by Stilicho saying:

Have you shown this stuff to LooneyJohn and Chris Halkides? I am sure they'd write it off as yet another hum-drum "internalised false confession". Are they fighting to get Spader freed yet?

 

[Katody Matrass]

The claim of 1 a.m. from Raffaele is in part of the leaked interrogation to Corriere della Sera article of November 7, 2007. It may be elsewhere (perhaps the news article on Raffaele before his arrest?).

Raffaele states that he was on his computer until around 1 a.m. when Amanda arrived home. He mentions not remembering what Amanda was wearing and if they made love. He doesn't explicitly state he went to sleep after 1 a.m. but states he awoke around 10 a.m.

In this same article is the leaked interrogation of Amanda.

http://www.corriere.it/cronache/07_novembre_07/meredith_verbali_sarzanini.shtml

Thanks christianahannah, this info certainly helps with comprehending some Raffale's diary writings.

 

[Jungle Jim]

I agree.

I would still be interested in seeing all their statements, though.

Here are several statements in their own words regarding the later portion of the night on Nov. 1st. There are others, but they come from transcripts printed in the media.

Raffaele Sollecito’s diary.
Translated by www.perugiamurderfile.org
November 7, 2007
We returned to my house at around 8 ‐ 8:30 pm and there I made another joint and, since it was a holiday, I took everything with extreme tranquillity, without the slightest intention of going out since it was cold outside.

I donʹt remember what time I ate, but I certainly ate and Amanda ate with me. The questions asked by the agents of the Squadra Mobile made me remember that that day the water pipe under the sink had detached itself and this fact makes me very suspicious since it is not possible for it to detach itself. In any case, the fact is that it flooded half the house.

I remember that I surfed the Internet for a while, I may have watched a film and then you called me at home or you sent me a goodnight SMS [messaggio] at least [comunque]. I remember that it was Thursday and therefore Amanda had to go to the pub where she usually works, but I do not remember how long she was gone. I remember that she subsequently told me that the pub was closed (I have serious doubts regarding the fact that she had gone out). I am straining myself to remember other details but they are all confused. Another thing of which I can be sure is that Amanda slept with me that night.

AMANDA KNOX TRIAL TESTIMONY, FRIDAY, JUNE 12, 2009.
AUDIO #5

LG: Yes. And did you eat dinner?

AK: Yes. But it was very late when we ate.

LG: Fish?

AK: Yes. Fish and a salad.

LG: And then something happened to the faucet of the sink?

AK: Yes. While Raffaele was washing the dishes, water was coming out from underneath. He looked down, turned off the water and then looked underneath and the pipe underneath "got loose" [in English, the lawyer translates "broke" (si e rotto), the interpreter translates "slowed down" (si e rallentato)] and water was coming out.

GCM: Can you say what time this was?

AK: Um, around, um, we ate around 9:30 or 10, and then after we had eaten and he was washing the dishes, well, as I said, I don't look at the clock much, but it was around 10. And...he...umm...well, he was washing the dishes and, umm, the water was coming out and he was very "bummed" [English], displeased, he told me he had just had that thing repaired. He was annoyed that it had broken again. So, umm...

LG: Yes. So you talked a bit. Then what did you do?

AK: Then we smoked a joint together. What we did is, we said all right, let's find some rags, but he didn't have a "mop" [in English] how do you say "mop"? [The interpreter translates "lo spazzolone", the lawyer "il mocio"] he didn't have one, and I said don't worry, I have one at home, I'll bring it tomorrow, the leak is in the kitchen, it wasn't like it smelled bad or anything, we could just forget about it for the night, and then think about it tomorrow. So, we went into his room, and I think I, yes, I lay down on his bed, and he went to the desk, and while he was there he rolled the joint, and then we smoked it together.

LG: Did you fall asleep together?

AK: Yes, first we made love, and then we fell asleep.

AMANDA KNOX TRIAL TESTIMONY, SATURDAY, JUNE 13, 2009. AUDIO #3

GM: So, I wanted to know something else. At what time did the water leak in Sollecito's house?

AK: After dinner, I don't know what time it was.

GM: Towards 21, 21:30?

AK: 21, that's 9? No, it was much later than that.

GM: A bit later? How much?

AK: We had dinner around...10:30, so that must have happened a bit later than that. Maybe around 11

 

[Antony]

I can't speak for everyone out there but it's unlikely to be seen here. If they are released on appeal, I will trust that judgement and rejoice with the rest of you.

I think that's the difference between you and me: I see no reason to trust the decision of the court without knowing the evidence behind their decision. If I had reason to think they were guilty, there is no way I would shrug my shoulders and say "oh, the court knows better about everything."

As for "rejoicing", that will hardly be my emotion when the truth comes out. Satisfaction, yes, but anger and frustration alongside. Anger at 3-and-a-half years (at least) of 2 young people's lives destroyed for ... nothing. Instead of being able to grieve for their murdered friend and console themselves with their still-fresh love affair, their previous lives were snatched away and they have had to fight for their freedom ever since. People never recover fully from an experience like Amanda and Raffaele have had.

And frustration, because despite all of the similar cases, the mistakes and official self-delusion go on. Maybe there will be monetary compensation awarded for the losses suffered by Amanda, Raffaele and their families, but we can be sure that there will be few lessons learned by the Italian judiciary. At best there will be some fiddling with police and court procedures; but there will be no end to police impunity, and no accountability established against the complicity of the judges. This is the experience of cases like this in my country (the UK), and I daresay, in the US as well.

 

[Machiavelli]

No, it's not perfect. That mark only partially lies on the decoration, part of it is on the flat area.


(...)

You see, that's why I can't agree that reasoning is both good and objective. I also see further discussion of it as quite pointless. Unless someone claims the print excludes Rudy. Such wild claim must be refuted.

Ar you saying the mark outline overlaps to the decoration casually? Ar you saying it was produced casually?

I remind you don't have my reasoning and pictures in detail.

You are antitled obviously to your spontaneous conclusions, which may appear to me equally unfounded and non objective.

 

[Katody Matrass]

Ar you saying the mark outline overlaps to the decoration casually? Ar you saying it was produced casually?

I'm not sure what you mean by casually. I simply checked the photo. The mark simply lies partially on the flat area, you're mistaken that it fully corresponds to the "decoration".

 

[Scorpion NITE]

Another UK Journalist expresses doubts.

From The Guardian.


http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2010/nov/11/amanda-knox-conviction-doubt

 

[Withnail1969]

Ar you saying the mark outline overlaps to the decoration casually? Ar you saying it was produced casually?

I remind you don't have my reasoning and pictures in detail.

You are antitled obviously to your spontaneous conclusions, which may appear to me equally unfounded and non objective.

Do you have special qualifications in analysing footprints? If you don't, then can we please stop this constant scenario where you tell people they don't know what they're talking about when it comes to footprints.

 

[Withnail1969]

Another UK Journalist expresses doubts.

From The Guardian.


http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2010/nov/11/amanda-knox-conviction-doubt

Indeed. I don't recall ANY journalist worldwide recently expressing any kind of certainty that the conviction is sound, do you?

 

[katy_did]

I'm finding the discussion about what Amanda and Raffaele wrote about what they did that evening while they were at home, and when they did it, to be a bit odd. Neither of them have ever claimed to have very precise, clear memories of that evening, only that they spent it together in Raffaele's flat. So why is the discussion focusing on whether or not what they said contradicts the idea they were using the computer on and off all night, rather than on whether or not they were using it?

If the computer records show the computer was active up until 6 in the morning or thereabouts, it really doesn't matter if they previously claimed to be out shooting wild pigs from sunset to daybreak. The computer records show they were at home. Why isn't the real heart of the issue being addressed? Is it because if the defence are right about this, they have an alibi and it really is 'case closed' this time?

 

[treehorn]

Indeed. I don't recall ANY journalist worldwide recently expressing any kind of certainty that the conviction is sound, do you?

I don't recall ANY journalist worldwide recently expressing any kind of certainty that the conviction of [insert name of infamous convict here] is sound, do you?

 

[treehorn]

Treehorn,

A couple of us have documented Mr. Sayagh's credentials here, including the fact that he is a candidate for the bar. Calling him an amateur is inaccurate, at the least.

Are you claiming that you are a pro? If so, would you mind providing your qualifications?

Do you have ANY idea how many people are "candidates" for bar admission?!

It's hardly a prestigious or rare status.

His paper is unpublished - that speaks volumes about its merit/ lack thereof. Further it was written while he was merely a student. Worse still, he was a student at a common law school and, as a result, has NO formal training in the civil law tradition.

I have absolutely no interest in it.

I'll reveal my credentials when Lowe feels safe enough to reveal his.

 

[RoseMontague]

Have you not seen the references from friends and family to the incident on her social networking site? (Along the lines of, "That's gross Amanda, even for you.")

Have you not read her sister's reaction to the story? (FYI: She didn't deny it.)

Here is the article and the denial, treehorn.

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/world/europe/article4113087.ece

Deanna makes short shrift of what the family sees as one of many slurs on Knox, an e-mail she sent to a friend in which she said she had sex with an Italian on a train during that journey. “That is so untrue. I was everywhere with her. It’s true we met a guy called Federico and we had dinner with him. But nothing happened. I think Amanda was just making fun of Italian men. They stare at you a lot more than men do here. ”

MySpace account of the train trip is here:

http://patrishka.wordpress.com/2009/12/18/amanda-knox/

I am not sure where you are getting your information from that contradicts this information. If you have some links please post them.

 

[treehorn]

Treehorn,

An anonymous source who read it told me that Daniel’s witness statement (he was not called to testify) states that he was not in Perugia after he night he and Amanda slept together. That statement is also in Amanda gli Altri, the book that was published on the case (and the author is no friend of Amanda).

An "anonymous source" told you so?!

That's how you're going to refute the reports of a journalist with Newsweek?!

Let's ask Lowe if this meets the standards of his 'evidence based argument' test.

Well, Lowe?

 

[RoseMontague]

1) You and others have introduced countless other criminal cases to argue by way of analogy specific aspects of the Kercher case which support the position of Knox's and Sollecito's innocence, most particularly in regard to instances of false confessions. However, even a cursory glance at these other cases reveals great dissimilarities between them and the Kercher case. As such, I think that there is definitely room in this thread for comparisons to be made between the Cates and Kercher cases, especially given recent public statements by those professing certainty of Knox's innocence

That is only fair. However, I do expect that quad will jump all over this analogy just as he does the ones on the innocent side..........any minute now, I am certain.

 

[LondonJohn]

An "anonymous source" told you so?!

That's how you're going to refute the reports of a journalist with Newsweek?!

Let's ask Lowe if this meets the standards of his 'evidence based argument' test.

Well, Lowe?

His name's Kevin Lowe, and your constant personal attacks on him are not only tiresome, they're also out of order. Change the way you post, please.

 

[LondonJohn]

Here is the article and the denial, treehorn.

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/world/europe/article4113087.ece




MySpace account of the train trip is here:

http://patrishka.wordpress.com/2009/12/18/amanda-knox/

I am not sure where you are getting your information from that contradicts this information. If you have some links please post them.

Some people see what they want to see, rather than what's actually there....

I wonder when John Follain's book is coming out?

 

[Chris_Halkides]

your arguments are without merit

An "anonymous source" told you so?!

That's how you're going to refute the reports of a journalist with Newsweek?!

Let's ask Lowe if this meets the standards of his 'evidence based argument' test.

Well, Lowe?

Treehorn,

You are ignoring the book I mentioned.

Ms. Nadeau’s errors in Angel Face have been discussed here already. I suggest you search them out. They include her claims of the existence of blond hairs at the murder scene and the existence of seven areas on the kitchen knife that had biological material. In addition two bloggers have examined the quality of her work on this case, Mark Waterbury and myself, and we found a number of problems. Moreover, if you want the prestige of Newsweek to rub off on Ms. Nadeau, you are talking to the wrong person. Newsweek’s cover story of 1 May 2006 deserves a place in the media hall of shame, in the wing for crime coverage.

Who is Ms. Nadeau’s source for the information that Daniel and Amanda slept together during the week before the murder? At this point he or she is anonymous. Does Ms. Nadeau have access to Daniel’s witness statement? If Daniel were in Perugia that week, wouldn’t his friends downstairs have known about it?

When you are interested in having an intelligent debate, please let me know. Your discussion about this question and Mr. Sayagh’s manuscript are equally unserious.