Continuation - Discussion of the Amanda Knox case

[RoseMontague]

- I've got no problem with sending the computer disk anywhere to get it recovered. The most noise I hear about happy photos on Amanda's disk comes from pro-Amanda posters on sites like this, not from her lawyers, so I'm not sure if this is a key issue for her legal strategy (maybe it is, but I see them more concerned about the Double DNA Knife, as they should be).

We are in agreement on this. I never stated it was a key issue, although I do consider it to be an issue with some degree of importance.

 

[Kermit]

Let's get this straight

Wasn't the conclusion 'Amanda did it because these Luminol reactions indicate that the crime scene has been cleaned up, despite the fact that the floor is still dirty and they test negative for blood?

No, if you don't remember, Amanda was put in preventative prison as a direct result of her statements on Nov. 5 where she placed herself at the crime scene, and it became apparent she had knowledge of the crime and could foreseeably have been a participant (taking into account Raffaele's statement that she had made him tell a pack of lies, plus the other initial evidence gathered). As we know, preventative prison is applied when a person of interest/indagata/accused may escape Italian jurisdiction or if the crime could potentially be repeated (ask Yummi for better details if you need them).

If you want to zoom in on the clean up rather than the murder, sure, the Luminol prints have been used to argue a cleanup and if Amanda did the clean up that reinforces her role in the murder. But Amanda was placed in preventative prison because of a murder.

Nara 'miracle ear' Capezalli was even able to tell what in direction people were running just by listening .... She can also tell whether people are running on leaves, gravel, or iron staircases. And all this through double-glazed windows.

If you have ever lived in a stone building, and there are iron stairways bolted to the stone wall just a few feet / metres from you and it's the middle of the night, I can garantee you that you can hear it perfectly. (haven't you ever seen any cowboy-and-Indian movies where the Indians listen to the iron track and hear trains miles away? well, it works)

As for the gravel and so on, I don't doubt it. I live in a brick house, I have double glazed windows, and I can hear lots of things out in the street in the dead of night. Even Paul the PI in his useless CBS acoustic test from a higher (and seemingly more sturdy or extra-glazed) window said he thought he could almost hear a kid in running shoes on asphalt below Nara's place. That was generous of Paul. If the kid had been running on gravel or crunchy leaves maybe his "almost" would have been definite.

The police lied to them and said to each of them that the other one had incriminated them, resulting in the confusing statements.

This is a FOAKer urban legend.

Raffaele's only complaint about being humiliated by the police was when he was already arrested and had to be searched as part of his prison ingress.

As far as I know (correct me please) neither Raffaele nor his lawyers have ever complained about abusive treatment or lies during his questioning on November 5.

 

[Justinian2]

The Break-in

Re: http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showthread.php?postid=6566866#post6566866

The reason the break-in is so important is that it is double edged.

1) If the break-in was real, then it strongly suggests that Geude acted alone. It also weakens the prosecution case and credibility.

2) If the break-in was staged, then it suggests that at least one of the defendants had prior knowledge that there was something to cover up.

Why do second story men break into the upper floors? I know the majority of alarm systems only work on the first floor - the second floor is considered an unlikely place to break-in. The ability to break into a second floor is a good ability for a cat burglar to have.

Those shutters provided a nice hand-hold for a gymnast to hold on to as he walked himself up the wall. A gymnast could easily have climbed onto the window sill where he could have rested before leisurely reaching in to unlock the window.

If the second floor is considered an unlikely target for the experts, then why would anybody stage a second floor break-in? It's absurd to think that a second floor break-in would be staged - especially by people that knew nothing about home break-ins. Heck, even security companies don't recommend alarming the second floor windows.

People that install alarms tell you that the burglar usually enters via the back door and then opens the front door from which to make his escape in a natural way.

 

[Withnail1969]

No, if you don't remember, Amanda was put in preventative prison as a direct result of her statements on Nov. 5 where she placed herself at the crime scene, and it became apparent she had knowledge of the crime

What knowledge of the crime did she have that nobody else had?

If you have ever lived in a stone building, and there are iron stairways bolted to the stone wall just a few feet / metres from you and it's the middle of the night, I can garantee you that you can hear it perfectly. (haven't you ever seen any cowboy-and-Indian movies where the Indians listen to the iron track and hear trains miles away? well, it works)

As for the gravel and so on, I don't doubt it. I live in a brick house, I have double glazed windows, and I can hear lots of things out in the street in the dead of night. Even Paul the PI in his useless CBS acoustic test from a higher (and seemingly more sturdy or extra-glazed) window said he thought he could almost hear a kid in running shoes on asphalt below Nara's place. That was generous of Paul. If the kid had been running on gravel or crunchy leaves maybe his "almost" would have been definite.

She was claiming to be able to hear these things in the driveway of the cottage, a considerable distance from her closed, double glazed window. Nara is not a 'neighbour' of the cottage. If she can actually tell what direction someone is running in at that distance through double glazing, then she really does have miraculous hearing. If only the court had allowed the necessary audiometric tests, then we would know for sure. I wonder why they were disallowed?

This is a FOAKer urban legend.

Raffaele's only complaint about being humiliated by the police was when he was already arrested and had to be searched as part of his prison ingress.

As far as I know (correct me please) neither Raffaele nor his lawyers have ever complained about abusive treatment or lies during his questioning on November 5.

Raffaele complained about being psychologically tortured by the police as i recall. I'm sure we've been through this multiple times on this thread.

 

[RoseMontague]

-

- You're right, kids today take photos of everything, so where are Meredith's photos?

Wasn't Meredith's computer one of the three that were damaged in addition to Raffaele's and Amanda's?

 

[Machiavelli]

My post didn't promote a ritualistic scenario. On November 6th, the chief of police and the Minister of the Interior called a press conference in which they announced that Patrick Lumumba, Amanda Knox and Raffaele Sollecito had tried to force Meredith Kercher into sex she didn't want, and killed her for refusing.

Meanwhile, Luca Lalli had said there was no evidence of sexual assault; there was no evidence that Amanda or Raffaele had participated in anything like what was being described; and we all know how things turned out for Patrick. From whom did the chief of police and the Minister of the Interior receive their information about what happened during the crime?



(..)

I would like to ask you whether you think making fun of someone is the same as accusing them with no evidence, and what you think it is that constitutes a bad mistake.

My additional thoughts are general, to correct a possible idea that, while we shall be careful on any topics about the defendants, we are free to attack just as we like an think is fit one of the prosecutor, or police or judges or witnesses.
Some comments on certain topics can be legitimate, attacks on other topics may not. Expressing an opinion on someone is one thing. Affirm that someone is corrupted, or has committed a crime, is a totally different matter.
The mistake consists in asserting Mignini and others are "corrupted", or that he or others have fabricated evidence, conspired, done things and so on.

Patrick Lumumba was arrested because Amanda Knox released two statements accusing him of murder and rape. About the Ministry of Interior, I don't respond for what politicians say and actually I don't care. The guy is just a citizen who makes a statement on a decree of arrest. The source of the information for everybody, however, is Amanda. She told a story of what happened in the crime. In Italy, you may not expect that a declaration by a suspect is kept secret. When suspects are identified, investigation findings mostly become public. In some systems (like Sweden, England, etc) these contents are kept secret by praxis as police activities, in Italy those informations go public. You can verify this happens in all investigations.

 

[Kermit]

Wasn't Meredith's computer one of the three that were damaged in addition to Raffaele's and Amanda's?

That's right. Here's the Massei Report:

"The computers of Knox, Sollecito, Lumumba and Meredith Kercher were examined first by the Scientific Police for fingerprints, and then, starting on 13 November 2007, five sets of technical tests were carried out by the Postal Police (cf. record of the Flying Squad, 3rd section produced at the 14 March 2009 hearing).

As far as the accused Raffaele Sollecito goes, the Postal Police technical examination was carried out only on his MacBook PRO Apple laptop. Insofar as his other PC, an ASUS L300D, as well as Amanda Knox’s Toshiba serial number 7541811OK and Meredith Kercher’s G4 iBook sustained damage, it was impossible to retrieve data from their respective hard drives." [page 299]

Since neither Amanda's not Meredith's disks are available (barring the hi-tech recovery), I guess we won't see those photos of the Chocolate Festival if the only place that Amanda and Meredith had photos was on their computers, and supposing they erased them from their cameras and didn't send any or post any on Internet as Meredith did with her photos taken in the meantime on Halloween, less than 24 hours before her death.

BTW Raffaele's disk with the fried disk is not key I think (even for RS) as it was his sister's machine that I understand he had in a corner, basically unused. The MacBook is the machine that contains data of forensic interest.

Gotta go now,

 

[Machiavelli]

Ick. Yuk. Gross. It's sickening to read such a sympathetic portrayal. If what you say about Mignini being influenced by literature is true, and I believe you are correct, it simply points up how shallow he is. He uses people for his personal dramas, as if they don't have lives of their own, or any meaning beyond how they can serve his story.


Don't you think it's kind of an important point that his "descriptive idea" was a "little too sophisticated for attributing to 20-year-old students," given it was that same "descriptive idea" that got them convicted? You are giving him an awfully big break, to shrug and say, well, yeah, the way he imagined it was pretty far out and probably wrong, but they DID find Meredith's DNA on the knife, after all.

The only reason they have the knife is because of Mignini's "descriptive idea."

Well, istincively I trust Mignini. I don't agree with several of his ideas in general. I have a positive human feedback and I perceive him as sincere. But I don't agree with his views.

The trial and conviction is not based on Mignini's descriptive idea. Claudia Matteini and massimo Ricciarelli sent Knox and Sollecito to prison seven months before the idea was formulized. Judge Micheli sent the them to trial and he rejected Mignini's description. The assise Court also rejected several aspects of the prosecution psychlogic and situational scenario.

 

[Kermit]

No, if you don't remember, Amanda was put in preventative prison as a direct result of her statements on Nov. 5 where she placed herself at the crime scene, and it became apparent she had knowledge of the crime

What knowledge of the crime did she have that nobody else had?

Ummm ... , she said things like (paraphrase):
- it was Patrick who attacked and murdered Meredith
- I was in the kitchen and covered my ears, imagining what was happening
- the screams
- (somewhere I saw a slightly different version - maybe from one of her other spontaneous documents? - which had Amanda and RS in Amanda's room. Only saw it once, don't know if that was indeed in any of her statements)

I think that from the point of view of a murder investigation in its early stages, Amanda - guilty or not of any crime - would definitely be considered a person of interest.

Now I really gotta go,

 

[Withnail1969]

Ummm ... , she said things like (paraphrase):
- it was Patrick who attacked and murdered Meredith
- I was in the kitchen and covered my ears, imagining what was happening
- the screams
- (somewhere I saw a slightly different version - maybe from one of her other spontaneous documents? - which had Amanda and RS in Amanda's room. Only saw it once, don't know if that was indeed in any of her statements)

I think that from the point of view of a murder investigation in its early stages, Amanda - guilty or not of any crime - would definitely be considered a person of interest.

Now I really gotta go,

Ah, I see. By 'knowledge' you don't actually mean 'the truth'. My mistake.

 

[Withnail1969]

Well, istincively I trust Mignini.

Just as you trust anyone who helps confirm your dogmatic view that Amanda is guilty. No need to say it, we already know.

 

[christianahannah]

Treehorn claimed that the Daily Mail piece written about the noise violation was used against Amanda at her trial. Thus it wasn't the noise violation per se under discussion, but the ridiculous article itself. Do you know if that was actually used at trial?

Mignini questions Amanda about details in the Daily Mail article and also mentions a report by Officer Bender (I do not know if the report was included in the article or if Mignini had the actual report).

At any rate, the impression I get from Massei during Amanda's testimony about this incident is that it was trivial and it was not brought up in the motivations against Amanda's previous character.

 

[Fuji]

I never heard a single argument that discredited his forensic ability

I posted one last week; maybe you missed it in the daily avalanche of posts.

In my estimation, Steve Moore is a fool, a charlatan, or possibly both.

 

[Withnail1969]

I posted one last week; maybe you missed it in the daily avalanche of posts.

In my estimation, Steve Moore is a fool, a charlatan, or possibly both.

So we're being lectured by Machiavelli not to say anything bad about the convicted criminal Mignini, yet you're happy to call a former FBI agent with 25 year's service a 'charlatan'?

How many convictions does Steve Moore have?

 

[Kermit]

There's a Perugia-Munich Midnight Express. We'll take you to the station in a cop car

Ummm ... , she said things like (paraphrase):
- it was Patrick who attacked and murdered Meredith
- I was in the kitchen and covered my ears, imagining what was happening
- the screams
- (somewhere I saw a slightly different version - maybe from one of her other spontaneous documents? - which had Amanda and RS in Amanda's room. Only saw it once, don't know if that was indeed in any of her statements)

I think that from the point of view of a murder investigation in its early stages, Amanda - guilty or not of any crime - would definitely be considered a person of interest.

Ah, I see. By 'knowledge' you don't actually mean 'the truth'. My mistake.

Okay:
- you're a cop
- you're investigating a murder
- a kid just gets caught out on some inconsistency and admits that his girlfriend had told him to tell a pack of lies
- you question the girl
- she blurts out (paraphrase): "it was him, Patrick, he took her to the bedroom, attacked her, killed her, there were terrible screams, I crouched in the kitchen and covered my ears"

According to your standard operating procedure, you decide that this girl isn't telling the truth (which is partially true) and therefore she is not of interest and has no useful knowledge which the cops may want to pursue.

The prison population must be zero in the town you're from, even if the crime rate is high.

 

[Kermit]

Just one more thing ...

Wasn't Meredith's computer one of the three that were damaged in addition to Raffaele's and Amanda's?

Just one additional, minor comment on the existent / non-existent Chocolate Festival photos:

Here's a report from The Sun on 3 November 2007, full of inaccuracies (typical of news hot off the press). However, they got Meredith's name right and looked up her Facebook profile and made this comment:

"Mr Kercher, a freelance journalist, said Meredith was one of five students from the uni who had gone to Perugia.

He added that he had been in contact with his ex-wife, Meredith's mum, over the tragedy. Shortly before her death, Meredith posted dozens of pictures of herself laughing and hugging friends on her internet Facebook site."

http://www.thesun.co.uk/sol/homepage/news/article424024.ece

I never saw Meredith's dozens of Facebook photos (just the ones we've all seen of Halloween). Be them photos of the Chocolate Festival or not, I would be interested in knowing how many photos Amanda appears in.

Now I'm really, really going,

 

[Withnail1969]

Okay:
- you're a cop
- you're investigating a murder
- a kid just gets caught out on some inconsistency and admits that his girlfriend had told him to tell a pack of lies

Not 'told him to tell lies', 'caused him to say a load of rubbish' (cavolo)? A very important distinction.

- you question the girl
- she blurts out (paraphrase): "it was him, Patrick, he took her to the bedroom, attacked her, killed her, there were terrible screams, I crouched in the kitchen and covered my ears"

I don't think it was 'questioning the girl'. I think it was yelling at the girl 'You were there and Patrick did it, admit it you liar!' for about 5 hours.

Amazing the view you have of these pleasant, polite, police interrogations.

 

[Mary_H]

<snip>
The word pornographic is Kaosium's, not the investigation's. If you're referring to a sexual assault by more than one person which culminated in murder, then let's take a look at the initial elements which could lead to that scenario (be it right or wrong - I'm only interesting here in understanding if the investigators were reasonable in considering this scenario):

Initial observation: There's a body with a slashed throat.
Initial conclusion: There has been a murder.

Initial observation: The victim is a girl. She is semi-naked. Her bra has been slashed (later there is DNA found on her genitals). Her boyfriend is in another city. Prior to the murder she had been with her friends and made no mention of having a date.
Initial conclusion: There has been a sexual assault.

All right, stop right there. On November 6th, when the theory of the crime was announced, those two facts were known.

The announcement was influenced by a coerced confession/accusation that had been recanted, but which we were to learn later fulfilled the police's (read: prosecutor's?) presumption of what had happened at the crime scene. However, even that coerced confession/accusation did not say one word about three people having committed the crime.

Initial observation: Luminol reveals different sized footprints between the bedroom and the bathroom. Some of the larger footprints could belong to a male or males. Some of the smaller footprints could belong to a female or females.
Initial conclusion for creating a scenario: There was more than one person.

Initial observation: Neighbour states hearing the running of more than one person.
Initial conclusion for creating a scenario: There was more than one person

These developments came long after the 6th.

Initial observation: Police officers observe that one of the roommates acts bizarrely (cartwheels in a police station while waiting to be questioned, hitting her head ... nothing incriminating in itself, but it sure draws attention). Her boyfriend insists in being with her during all questioning.

Nice try. Got a few citations for that claim?

Their alibis are vague and don't really jive.

Another nice try, but completely false. No citations required.

On the 5th, Raffaele says that Amanda made him tell a pack of lies and that in fact she was not in his flat during the time the crime took place.

Based on the little evidence we have of Raffaele's interrogation by the police, Raffaele did not say that.

On the 5th, Amanda places herself in the cottage (I'm still not sure if - and in which statement that was or wasn't accepted in court - she may have placed Raffaele in the cottage) and implicates a third person who she says was the actual attacker and murderer.

All coerced, highly confused and conflicted, and said outside the presence of counsel. No, she did not place Raffaele at the cottage. You seem to be trying to slip quite a few questionable claims into these comments.

Initial theory:The police create a theory of a sexual attack gone wrong, one which escalated into murder.

Why do you find that weird?

Because it was a theory based on wishful thinking, not evidence.

This has been a long and complex case. Along the way there is no doubt that mistakes have been made. Initially assigning the Nike print to Raffaele was a notable example, but that's why suspects have lawyers. Giobbi should have avoiding stating "case closed", when he knows that from the initial compilation of data to closing an investigation, over a year can go by. Matteini is faulted for describing in definite terms a sexual assault gone wrong in her initial report which sent RS, AK and Patrick to jail but such a report requires a description of the criminal scenario.

Oh well, everybody's human. Ha ha ha. Forgive and forget, eh?

You appear to be trying to minimize the very egregious errors that are some of the originating causes of the whole fiasco.

Maybe it should be compared to other such reports in Italy to see if verbs are conjugated in present perfect or conditional, and if in general it's conditional she could change her style. Again, not even Matteini would state at that point that the scenario in her report just a few days after the crime would exactly reflect the case that the prosecution would present in court well over a year later after a lengthy and complex investigation.

It was enough to get a twisted picture into the tabloids all over the world. Damage done, no going back, regardless of conjugation.

I don't feel the need to defend Mignini. I don't know him, I'll never know him. I'm interested in this case. If Mignini retires tomorrow, this case won't start over again.

Now, if the prosecutor of a complex case is the object of a multi-level campaign to discredit him, I think it's normal that he tries to defend his honour and integrity.<snip>

Defending oneself is one thing. Suing and possibly imprisoning people for exercising freedom of speech is another.

 

[Justinian2]

Wasn't Meredith's computer one of the three that were damaged in addition to Raffaele's and Amanda's?

Jeez, I sure wouldn't want to keep nude pictures of myself on the computer!
In a case like this, cops would blast them over the world.

About the alleged staging: http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showthread.php?postid=6568029#post6568029

This must be the only murder case in the world where they caught a murderer that didn't live at the murder address AND the murder was staged!

Only Magnini the magician could have pulled this off! Helps to have a gymnast like Guede doing what most people could not do to aid the illusion.

 

[platonov]

Originally Posted by Fuji

Originally Posted by Kaosium
I never heard a single argument that discredited his forensic ability

I posted one last week; maybe you missed it in the daily avalanche of posts.

In my estimation, Steve Moore is a fool, a charlatan, or possibly both.

So we're being lectured by Machiavelli not to say anything bad about the convicted criminal Mignini, yet you're happy to call a former FBI agent with 25 year's service a 'charlatan'?

How many convictions does Steve Moore have?

I'm surprised the FOAkers still have such high hopes for Steve Moore - that piglet has been juiced already.

Actually was he brought in to replace Anne Bremner ?

Hmmm - another one that was juiced, apparently

.