Continuation - Discussion of the Amanda Knox case

[Mary_H]

<snip>
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.

Amanda did not say that three people participated in the crime. She said Patrick committed the crime, and she heard it from another room. She did not mention Raffaele at all [corrected below by christianahannah -- Amanda said she didn't remember if Raffaele was there]. Raffaele was not even questioned about whether he participated in the crime.

Yet, the day all three were taken into custody, with no evidence other than Amanda's confused, retracted statements, this announcement was made to the press:

"In a brief press conference, the Perugia police chief Arturo de Felice said the arrests followed intensive detective work since Miss Kercher, of Coulsdon, Surrey, was found dead in her apartment on Friday. "All three participated in this crime. The motive was sexual and the victim rebelled," he said, adding: "The motive appears to have been a sexual attack. However, Miss Kercher was the victim and that's all. She was morally innocent of what occurred."

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/w...ans-murder-as-two-others-are-held-399287.html

Contrary to your claim, the suspect's complete declaration was kept secret, and a completely different one was conveyed in its place.

 

[platonov]

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.

<snip>

Rest easy, I think you are safe enough

- unless the pictures also include animals or Tom Cruise

.

 

[Withnail1969]

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/w...ans-murder-as-two-others-are-held-399287.html

Contrary to your claim, the suspect's complete declaration was kept secret, and a completely different one was conveyed in its place.

It's also very interesting that in that story Raffaele states the following:

Mr Sollecito, from Bari in southern Italy, said over the weekend that he and Miss Knox were the first to "discover" Miss Kercher's body. "It's something I never hope to see again," he added. "There was blood everywhere and I couldn't take it all in. My girlfriend was her flatmate and she was crying and screaming, 'How could anyone do this?'We went into [Miss Knox's] bedroom and it had been ransacked, like someone had been looking for something. But when we tried Meredith's room, the door was locked. She never normally locked her bedroom door, and that really made us frightened. I tried to knock it down. I thought maybe she was ill. I made a dent but I wasn't strong enough on my own so I called the police."

So how come we keep being told that Amanda didn't show any emotion about Meredith's death and that she told the police it was normal for Meredith's door to be locked?

 

[Mary_H]

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.

At some point toward the beginning of the case, concepts of rituals, Halloween, sex games and orgies made their way into the press. I don't know where the press would have gotten those ideas if not from their informants in the police and prosecutor's office. Whether those same concepts were in play during the actual trial is somewhat irrelevant, though, because they were already in the judges' and jury's minds.

Even if the bare-bones scenario ended up consisting of no more than these essential tenets --

1. Three people participated
2. Meredith was held down by one or two and threatened by another
3. Two knives were used

-- then the trial and conviction were indeed based on Mignini's descriptive idea, for which he had no evidence when it was originally formulated.

 

[Machiavelli]

Amanda did not say that three people participated in the crime. She said Patrick committed the crime, and she heard it from another room. She did not mention Raffaele at all. Raffaele was not even questioned about whether he participated in the crime.

Yet, the day all three were taken into custody, with no evidence other than Amanda's confused, retracted statements, this announcement was made to the press:

"In a brief press conference, the Perugia police chief Arturo de Felice said the arrests followed intensive detective work since Miss Kercher, of Coulsdon, Surrey, was found dead in her apartment on Friday. "All three participated in this crime. The motive was sexual and the victim rebelled," he said, adding: "The motive appears to have been a sexual attack. However, Miss Kercher was the victim and that's all. She was morally innocent of what occurred."

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/w...ans-murder-as-two-others-are-held-399287.html

Contrary to your claim, the suspect's complete declaration was kept secret, and a completely different one was conveyed in its place.

The declaration was not secret: Amanda said Lumomba went in the room with Meredith, she was in the kitchen and covered her eras as she hered Meredith's scream. This is the content of her declaration, and this is what the Italian press reported in those days. There is nothing different, no different declaration was conveyed. Why are you convinced of such a thing?

Amanda's statement was obviously not retracted:,unless you call her written statement a "retraction", and this written statement was released to the public too.

What the press wrote on Nov 7.

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

http://www.tgcom.mediaset.it/cronaca/articoli/articolo386917.shtml

on Nov. 9 journalist already express they don't really believe in Patrick's guilt,

http://www.repubblica.it/2007/11/sezioni/cronaca/perugia-uccisa2/perugia-uccisa2/perugia-uccisa2.html

"nothing is certain":

http://www.lastampa.it/redazione/cmsSezioni/cronache/200711articoli/27451girata.asp

the case is not closed:
http://qn.quotidiano.net/cronaca/2007/11/09/46364-arma_coltello_sollecito.shtml

Newspaper report entirely her "retraction" on Nov 21.

http://www.repubblica.it/2007/11/sezioni/cronaca/perugia-uccisa4/amanda-memoriale/amanda-memoriale.html

the same newspaper complains the case has been declared "closed" three times (Nov.21) and observes between 13. and 21. Nov the police collected evidence that caused a review of the reconstruction of events:

http://www.repubblica.it/2007/11/sezioni/cronaca/perugia-uccisa4/inchiesta-ribaltata/inchiesta-ribaltata.html

The only things newspapers seems to believe for certain about the scenario - in the above articles - is: the crime is related to some sexual context, and Amanda lied several times.

 

[Justinian2]

Amanda did not say that three people participated in the crime. She said Patrick committed the crime, and she heard it from another room. She did not mention Raffaele at all. Raffaele was not even questioned about whether he participated in the crime.

Yet, the day all three were taken into custody, with no evidence other than Amanda's confused, retracted statements, this announcement was made to the press:

"In a brief press conference, the Perugia police chief Arturo de Felice said the arrests followed intensive detective work since Miss Kercher, of Coulsdon, Surrey, was found dead in her apartment on Friday. "All three participated in this crime. The motive was sexual and the victim rebelled," he said, adding: "The motive appears to have been a sexual attack. However, Miss Kercher was the victim and that's all. She was morally innocent of what occurred."

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/w...ans-murder-as-two-others-are-held-399287.html

Contrary to your claim, the suspect's complete declaration was kept secret, and a completely different one was conveyed in its place.

The confession was disallowed. Do you think this latest slander charge {The Italians should believe the old proverb: "If you live in a glass house you shouldn't be the first to throw a stone"} was an attempt to have the confession admitted as evidence in order to defend herself against slander? Or are they almost completely evil?

I have a couple of points on the break-in. Skip over the part about not wanting nude photoes on my computer http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showthread.php?postid=6568496#post6568496
The above has a link to: http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showthread.php?postid=6568029#post6568029

The reason for discussing the break-in again is that this is a key area to secure going into the appeal.

 

[Withnail1969]

The declaration was not secret: Amanda said Lumomba went in the room with Meredith, she was in the kitchen and covered her eras as she hered Meredith's scream. This is the content of her declaration, and this is what the Italian press reported in those days. There is nothing different, no different declaration was conveyed. Why are you convinced of such a thing?

Amanda's statement was obviously not retracted:,unless you call her written statement a "retraction", and this written statement was released to the public too.

So why was Raffaele in custody?

 

[christianahannah]

Amanda did not say that three people participated in the crime. She said Patrick committed the crime, and she heard it from another room. She did not mention Raffaele at all. Raffaele was not even questioned about whether he participated in the crime.

Yet, the day all three were taken into custody, with no evidence other than Amanda's confused, retracted statements, this announcement was made to the press:

"In a brief press conference, the Perugia police chief Arturo de Felice said the arrests followed intensive detective work since Miss Kercher, of Coulsdon, Surrey, was found dead in her apartment on Friday. "All three participated in this crime. The motive was sexual and the victim rebelled," he said, adding: "The motive appears to have been a sexual attack. However, Miss Kercher was the victim and that's all. She was morally innocent of what occurred."

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/w...ans-murder-as-two-others-are-held-399287.html

Contrary to your claim, the suspect's complete declaration was kept secret, and a completely different one was conveyed in its place.

In Amanda's November 6, 2007 5:45 a.m. declaration to the police there is mention of Raffaele.

I am not sure if Raffaele was there as well that night but I clearly remember that I woke up at my boyfriend's home, in his bed and that I came back home in the morning when I fond the door of the apartment open. When I woke up in the morning of November 2nd I was in bed with my boyfriend.

Obviously what was said would be much clearer if there were tapes or, at the very least, transcripts of all the interrogations of Amanda and Raffaele.

 

[Mary_H]

The declaration was not secret: Amanda said Lumomba went in the room with Meredith, she was in the kitchen and covered her eras as she hered Meredith's scream. This is the content of her declaration, and this is what the Italian press reported in those days. There is nothing different, no different declaration was conveyed. Why are you convinced of such a thing?

Let me clarify: The context of her statements was not conveyed to the press. There is no mention of coercion, confusion or hesitation on her part. Also, her statements said nothing about Raffaele [misconception - corrected by christianahannah]. You say Lumumba was arrested as a result of Amanda's statement. Why was Raffaele arrested? It seems the press reports imply Amanda was responsible for that, too.

Amanda's statement was obviously not retracted:,unless you call her written statement a "retraction", and this written statement was released to the public too.

Yes, I do call that a retraction, although in fairness, that statement was made after the press conference, I believe.

What the press wrote on Nov 7.

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

http://www.tgcom.mediaset.it/cronaca/articoli/articolo386917.shtml

on Nov. 9 journalist already express they don't really believe in Patrick's guilt, and "nothing is certain":

http://www.repubblica.it/2007/11/sezioni/cronaca/perugia-uccisa2/perugia-uccisa2/perugia-uccisa2.html

http://www.lastampa.it/redazione/cmsSezioni/cronache/200711articoli/27451girata.asp

Newspaper report entirely her "retraction" on Nov 21.

http://www.repubblica.it/2007/11/sezioni/cronaca/perugia-uccisa4/amanda-memoriale/amanda-memoriale.html

the same newspaper complains the case has been declared "closed" three times (Nov.21) and observes between 13. and 21. Nov the police collected evidence that caused a review of the reconstruction of events:

http://www.repubblica.it/2007/11/sezioni/cronaca/perugia-uccisa4/inchiesta-ribaltata/inchiesta-ribaltata.html

The only things newspapers seems to believe for certain about the scenario - in the above articles - is: the crime is related to some sexual context, and Amanda lied several times.

I will put these in Google translate when I have time. If the press said Amanda lied several times, they were misinformed.

 

[Mary_H]

In Amanda's November 6, 2007 5:45 a.m. declaration to the police there is mention of Raffaele.

Obviously what was said would be much clearer if there were tapes or, at the very least, transcripts of all the interrogations of Amanda and Raffaele.

You're right, christianahannah; I overlooked that. Thank you for clarifying it.

 

[Justinian2]

Rest easy, I think you are safe enough

- unless the pictures also include animals or Tom Cruise

.

That's not the point. Perhaps I should have made it impossible for you to do a partial quote. I assumed a little intelligence in this Ice Age herd. Perhaps you are trying to be the sloth in this 'Ice age' herd.

I'm the squirrel that chases the nut.

The nut is the goal of winning the appeal.

 

[Machiavelli]

At some point toward the beginning of the case, concepts of rituals, Halloween, sex games and orgies made their way into the press. I don't know where the press would have gotten those ideas if not from their informants in the police and prosecutor's office. Whether those same concepts were in play during the actual trial is somewhat irrelevant, though, because they were already in the judges' and jury's minds.

Even if the bare-bones scenario ended up consisting of no more than these essential tenets --

1. Three people participated
2. Meredith was held down by one or two and threatened by another
3. Two knives were used

-- then the trial and conviction were indeed based on Mignini's descriptive idea, for which he had no evidence when it was originally formulated.

Those ideas (without Halloween) were formulized formally and told the first time as the request for trial was deposited at the closing of the investigation. The core Mignini's first scenario, describd as " 1. Three people participated - 2. Meredith was held down by one or two and threatened by another - 3. Two knives were used " was given in this occasion. This was many months after Amanda and Raffaele's arrest. The evidence for at this point was the evidence he brouhg in the trial. Then they were formulized again in more articulated way by Mignini on the pre-trial hearing.
They are trial stuff, and they made thir way regularly.

But I re-affirm that trial and conviction are based on Micheli's charges, not on this stuff, not on a descriptive idea. Your idea they constitute a bae of something is incorrect. I is merely a tool in your reasoning to build your "history" of the case. In reality, Micheli's charges are tha basis of the trial, whatever is "covered" by Micheli's charges and whatever - even smaller - accusation may fall under them, is good for a conviction. This is the charge and the base of the trial, the basis is not one of Mignini's descritpions.

 

[Mary_H]

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

.

As I understand it, Steve Moore is back in Seattle this week for more media interviews.

Steve Moore took the initiative to offer his services to Injustice in Perugia, which is not officially affiliated with the Friends of Amanda. Anne Bremner is one of the founders of the Friends of Amanda, which is not officially affiliated with Injustice in Perugia.

 

[Machiavelli]

Let me clarify: The context of her statements was not conveyed to the press. There is no mention of coercion, confusion or hesitation on her part. Also, her statements said nothing about Raffaele [misconception - corrected by christianahannah]. You say Lumumba was arrested as a result of Amanda's statement. Why was Raffaele arrested? It seems the press reports imply Amanda was responsible for that, too. (...)

Raffaele was arrested because the police thought he was lying. Also because, he declared he had previously told them a heap of crap, because his declaration was not credible ("I don't remember if we had sex", "I don't remember what we had for dinner"), and because he changed his version and retracted Amanda's alibi. And because he was bearing a knife in a police station.

 

[Chris_Halkides]

We don't know enough about the Spader case yet

SNIP

The attack on Kimberly and Jamie Cates was far more brutal than that visited upon Meredith Kercher. Two assailants hacked and butchered the victims using a knife and a machete. And yet, there was no physical evidence linking the machete-wielder to the scene (Christopher Gribble, the knife-wielder, goes on trial next February - it remains to be seen what physical evidence, if any, the state will introduce at that time).

Mind you, in the Kercher case, there is at least some disputed or questionable physical evidence tying Knox and Sollecito to the crime. In regards to Spader, by contrast, it needs to be repeated: we have "the complete lack of physical evidence linking the defendant to the crime scene". As such, it is evident to me that Steve Moore and those utilizing similar reasoning are in fact employing the "absence of evidence is evidence of absence" fallacy quite liberally.

Fuji,

Upon further consideration, I am less convinced of the relevance of the comparison between the Spader case and the Knox/Sollecito case (this represents a modest change in my thinking). In the former case we know very little. Perhaps there was no physical evidence because there was a cleanup. Perhaps the police did not properly secure the crime scene. And it seems as if you are arguing by anecdote. I think anecdotes are useful, but they have limitations.

On the other hand, we do know that Mr. Guede left three kinds of evidence, a fingerprint, shoeprints, and DNA. It is the complete lack of Ms. Knox’s trances, and the near-complete lack of Mr. Sollecito’s that is at issue. Are you suggesting a differential cleanup? If not, what are you suggesting is the reason for this difference?

 

[Mary_H]

Those ideas (without Halloween) were formulized formally and told the first time as the request for trial was deposited at the closing of the investigation. The core Mignini's first scenario, describd as " 1. Three people participated - 2. Meredith was held down by one or two and threatened by another - 3. Two knives were used " was given in this occasion. This was many months after Amanda and Raffaele's arrest. The evidence for at this point was the evidence he brouhg in the trial. Then they were formulized again in more articulated way by Mignini on the pre-trial hearing.
They are trial stuff, and they made thir way regularly.

But I re-affirm that trial and conviction are based on Micheli's charges, not on this stuff, not on a descriptive idea. Your idea they constitute a bae of something is incorrect. I is merely a tool in your reasoning to build your "history" of the case. In reality, Micheli's charges are tha basis of the trial, whatever is "covered" by Micheli's charges and whatever - even smaller - accusation may fall under them, is good for a conviction. This is the charge and the base of the trial, the basis is not one of Mignini's descritpions.

Honestly, Machiavelli. I guess you are claiming that because the trial resulted from Micheli's charges and Micheli's charges were made after the investigation was complete, that Micheli's charges are valid, because they are based on evidence, whereas Mignini's descriptive idea was based on conjecture.

All right. The trial and conviction were based on Micheli's charges. Micheli's charges were based on evidence from the investigation. The investigation was based on Mignini's conjecture. Curiously, and with all manner of surprising coincidence, the investigation supported Mignini's conjecture!

You cannot get around the fact that the discovery of evidence followed the original theory of the crime, sans sensational aspects like Halloween, rituals and orgies.

 

[Mary_H]

Raffaele was arrested because the police thought he was lying. Also because, he declared he had previously told them a heap of crap, because his declaration was not credible ("I don't remember if we had sex", "I don't remember what we had for dinner"), and because he changed his version and retracted Amanda's alibi. And because he was bearing a knife in a police station.

How do we know what Raffaele said to the police? All we have are the reports they gave to the press and the little he wrote in his diary several days later.

The story of the knife was that they didn't know he was carrying it. They probably didn't find it until after he had been arrested. For no reason.

 

[Mary_H]

Regarding the current prosecutor

From Candace Dempsey's latest blog entry:

"Amanda and Raffaele face a prosecution team beefed up as if for a terrorist trial.

"Oddly enough," notes Italian investigative reporter Giancarlo Sulas of Oggi, this appeal stars three, yes three, prosecutors. And it won't be a startover. Via a legal loophole, Giancarlo Costagliola will be "assisted" by two old familiar faces from the first trial. Prosecutors Manuela Comodi and Giuliano Mignini--convicted of abuse of office in an unrelated case and working under a suspended sentence.

"I've been a lawyer for 35 years and never has this happened to me," Amanda's lawyer Luciano Ghirgha told Oggi.

"It's like he (Costagliola) can't handle the tasks of a prosecutor on his own," scoffed Raffaele's defense team.

Sulas says the fight over testing and other issues could spark fireworks at the first hearing. Then comes a second court date on Dec. 11 and a possible verdict by January or February.

http://blog.seattlepi.com/dempsey/archives/228910.asp

 

[TomCH]

From Candace Dempsey's latest blog entry:



http://blog.seattlepi.com/dempsey/archives/228910.asp

This is pretty old news.

But good news, all the same.

 

[Dan O.]

BTW, one thing that has puzzled me: do you know why the hard drives have to go to Japan? What piece of equipment or expertise could be needed for hard drive data retrieval that wouldn't fit on an airplane to Perugia?

The hard drive has already been sent out of the country once to attempt data recovery. It would be much easier to send the drive to Japan along with a court representative if necessary than to bring all of the equipment and expertise that may be needed to Italy.

One piece of equipment that may be necessary would be the optical bed for realigning the platters. There are also specialized tools for extracting and installing the heads that the company is not going to part with. The algorithms defining the track layout may be a proprietary industrial secret that gives Toshiba an advantage in the market.

So why won't the Italian authorities allow the drive to be sent to Japan? The data on the drive is Amanda's. The cost will be covered by Amanda's family. The Italian experts have already failed to recover the data on this drive that they destroyed in the first place.

The only thing I see holding it up is the Italian's pride. But the Italian's shouldn't have any pride left in this matter. Those bumbling idiots that they called experts were absolutely stupid in the way they tried to recover the data.
* They should have known better than to experiment with the forensic copying dongle on drives with irreplaceable data. You always use a test drive first to verify that everything is setup correctly.
* They should not have continued to fry more drives after the first failure.
* They should not have attempted swapping the logic board without first getting advice from a real expert with working experience with that exact model drive and first verifying that the procedure works and is safe (a real expert would say: if the data is valuable, don't try this at home).
* They should never have opened the drive outside of a proper clean room facility.

The Italian experts acted like stupid children with bloated egos. The courts should force those experts to publicly denounce their own actions, to admit that it was their mistakes that rendered the drive unreadable and make them pay for sending the drives to Toshiba where there is the best chance for recovery of the data.