Continuation - Discussion of the Amanda Knox case

[Mary_H]

Everything is connected in our reality, in a philosiphical sense. The attitude of the questore De Felice is just not meaningful in the case. It is a show for the media. The press want something to write for the day, you have to feed them and get along with them to avoid trouble.
Essentially what they told is what they thought, and was correct in a significant degree. Some words suggesting an eccessive tone of certanity could be disputable. But they had arrested three people. You don't arrest somebody you think is innocent.

Innocent people are often arrested. That's the primary reason we have trials and lawyers -- in case the people who were arrested are innocent, and the police erred in arresting them. To say "case closed" before the trial is held is obviously an infringement of the rights of the defendants to a presumption of innocence.

The attitude of the questore De Felice is extremely meaningful. It is not something to be called a show for the media and disregarded. It set the tone for at least two years' worth of media reports based on a presumption of guilt, and there is evidence the judges and jury were influenced by these media reports. If the press didn't play an important role in how the case was tried, the police and prosecution would not have made sure they had so much information (much of it false).

 

[Chris_Halkides]

Neither of us was mistaken

No problem, but lets get this simple 1.45 / 4.45* issue out of the way first.

*Was Dempsey mistaken or mendacious or was it an error on your part.

And we may have to address the 'non summons' summons.

.

platonov,

I have already answered this question a number of times, both tonight and previously on this or the earlier thread. According to Ms. Dempsey, Amanda was not "treated like a person" until she had signed on the dotted line (pp. 150-151). I have previously said that the account of when Ms. Knox was given food is disputed.

Meanwhile you have not cited anything to bolster your implicit claim that Ms. Knox was given refreshments at 1:45. Once you rectify this glaring omission, perhaps you can at last attend to my questions. I am as eager to hear your responses as I am to see the fruits of Alt+F4's no-doubt diligent research into Ms. Knox's MySpace account and other matters.

 

[Kaosium]

Kind of like everyone here jumping on Comodi for being off about the time of the call? But I know, THAT'S ok, just not when it's Steve Moore.

You didn't see me wade into that maelstrom! It was not a facet of the case that interested me. As for Steve Moore I believe I said something to the effect that I didn't find that sort of article persuasive, and I did find it odd that someone would think that sort of thing could 'discredit' knowledge gained in 25 years in the FBI that directly pertains to the case.

I'm not holding my breath until everyone decides to accept that, though.

So Steve Moore's excuse from you is that he was nervous about being on tv. Maybe poor Comodi was nervous questioning a suspect in front of an entire courtroom and made a mistake.

It could very well be, in fact from what I followed of it I got the impression she might have made a mistake initially and then realized it and sat down leaving Amanda twisting in the wind, but it was not actually premeditated.

However I do not care enough about that specific issue to defend that vague impression! From what I have read so far Commodi does not strike me as the one who should have to take the responsibility for this entire debacle, though that might change as I learn more about her role.

Are you actually saying you think she recanted as soon as she left the interrogation room? You are wrong, she did not. She even wrote a statement backing up what she had said, from jail.

I read that and came to a completely different conclusion, and no I don't think she 'recanted' the moment she left that room. I know it wasn't two weeks later though, and I find the idea that a professional police force would move on or release a suspect solely on the basis of what the foreign college student said or didn't say absurd, especially considering the context.

I do not entirely accept Steve Moore's take on what happened there. I think he might have interrogated some very dangerous people; I wonder if perhaps his insight into how those go might have colored his perceptions of what occurred in that police station. I suspect however that despite that he makes very good points, and his conclusion is correct. That was an aggressive interrogation designed to 'break' the subject, but I do not mean with violence or deprivation to the extent he wrote about. I also think it ended in a way no one quite expected.

I dont consider what Mary said a smear either, and I respect her right to say it. However, TJMK and whomever else wants to has the right to point out Steve's errors, and they are not smears anymore than what Mary said.

I did not find the piece compelling, and it caused me to wonder more about whoever wrote it than Steve Moore. I am also aware of what some people think of Steve Moore, Amanda Knox, Raffaele Sollecito and all of their extended families, friends, supporters and attendant pets. I think what they say about them reflects more upon themselves than their target of ire, however I don't actually expect it to stop, it's become a pastime for some I think.

Oh, and I say mean things too sometimes.

 

[Mary_H]

Thats one of the things about this case thats so hard to understand. Right when you think you've heard something one way, someone else comes along and tells you the opposidte. Here I was believeing that she actually said that she 'stands by my statements that I made last night about events that could have taken place in my home with Patrick'

I know she said both of these in her 'Gift', by why does one side only quote the parts they want to hear?

I have often wondered the same thing. I find it more useful to look at each statements and each diary as a whole, and get a feeling for what the theme is. For example, for about 6,000 words, Raffaele's diary says he is innocent, and then for about fifteen words he says he remembers accidentally pricking Meredith with the kitchen knife. Why should fifteen words outweigh 5,985 words?

 

[platonov]

One of us is correct, one is obfuscating.

platonov,

I have already answered this question a number of times, both tonight and previously on this or the earlier thread. According to Ms. Dempsey, Amanda was not "treated like a person" until she had signed on the dotted line (pp. 150-151). I have previously said that the account of when Ms. Knox was given food is disputed.

Meanwhile you have not cited anything to bolster your implicit claim that Ms. Knox was given refreshments at 1:45. Once you rectify this glaring omission, perhaps you can at last attend to my questions. I am as eager to hear your responses as I am to see the fruits of Alt+F4's no-doubt diligent research into Ms. Knox's MySpace account and other matters.

Cite

1.45 or 5.45 ??

Or shall we move on.

You appear to have a low opinion of AK, you wont take her word for anything instead referring to the works of Dempsey.
There could be a role for you in Perugia PD - they are equally skeptical of her utterances.

.

 

[odeed]

If the only proof that Amanda was paraded through the streets of Perugia is because Candace Dempsey says so, well, we can tick that item off the list.

The claim was repeated so many times that it was taken as true, without even checking for the original source, which is surprising on a skeptics forum.

 

[Chris_Halkides]

asked and answered

Cite

1.45 or 5.45 ??

Or shall we move on.

You appear to have a low opinion of AK, you wont take her word for anything instead referring to the works of Dempsey.
There could be a role for you in Perugia PD - they are equally skeptical of her utterances.

.

Asked and answered at least twice. Sorry I can't afford to hire a skywriter to say it a third time. When will you start answering my questions? I have been waiting quite some time now.

 

[Chris_Halkides]

A yes or a no

The claim was repeated so many times that it was taken as true, without even checking for the original source, which is surprising on a skeptics forum.

Are you claiming it is false?

 

[Kaosium]

Bleach receips and Harry Potter books all proved to be good news for the defence, nothing more than wrong tiny pieces of circumstantial evidence that were tossed out. You'd rather worry about what is in.

I disagree. It's like a front page story in the newspaper with an egregious error, but when the retraction comes it's on page 39 tucked down into the corner. In other words the 'suspicion' gets broadcast everywhere, but when it turns out to be false it seldom gets much mention. Therefore I'll be willing to bet there were some jurors, and the people who they talked to regularly, who still thought some of the things that turned out to be specious were actually true during the trial.

In the trial, police officers just testified they notice they always came both as they called only one of them. This happened the 5th too: the other officers just noticed Amanda came unsummoned. They noticed this behaviour. This could be meaningless. But certainly is not an argument for innocence.

It suggests to me she was scared and would rather hang around the police station than be home alone. It also implies the police officers knew if they called Raffaele in alone, Amanda would come too...

 

[platonov]

Straight answers

platonov,

I would not be surprised to learn that the police claim to have given her refreshments prior to 5:45 (in fact it is my understanding that they do make this claim). I am saying that their claim is disputed.

I think you are missing the larger question, one that I raised many months ago on the previous thread. I am less concerned with whether the investigators stayed within the letter of the law than I am concerned with whether their actions advanced justice. Likewise, I am less concerned with whether or not Amanda were hit or denied refreshments than I am interested in whether or not she were interrogated in a way that would produce false statements.

To define abuse and to address these issues, I have been asking myself the following questions with response to the actions of the investigators:
Was the behavior likely to produce accurate information, or (intentionally or not) likely to produce an outcome where the person became confused or felt pressured to lie?
Was the behavior in accordance with the expectations of liberal democracies?Was the behavior in the public interest? Was the behavior proportionate to the alleged crime?
By some (not all) accounts all four (Knox, Lumumba, Prescott, and Spezi) were interrogated and/or held in ways that run counter to one or more of the four principles I have listed. Therefore, by this standard they were abused.

Yes, well they took her at her word re PL, but what were they supposed to do.
Yes
Yes
Yes

Its not difficult to answer straight questions after all, & no clouds were harmed in the making of this post.

.

 

[Mary_H]

Are you actually saying you think she recanted as soon as she left the interrogation room? You are wrong, she did not. She even wrote a statement backing up what she had said, from jail.

I don't know whether you have read this part of Amanda's testimony, Solange; you can just skip it if you have. The essence of it is that, after her interrogation, Amanda had no idea she was going to be arrested until they actually took her to jail. She thought she had done her part to help the investigation and was free to go.

She didn't feel a need to "recant" as soon as she left the interrogation room, because she still believed the police's version of events -- that she had heard Patrick commit the crime. She had nothing to recant because she didn't know her statement was being looked upon as an accusation of Patrick -- all she had done was agree with the police. It wasn't until she had been out of the interrogation room for a while that she started doubting herself.

Halides1 wrote a good summary above of why it is incorrect to say that Amanda backed up what she said about Patrick. As he said, "Her confusion is manifest throughout the entire document."

LG: After all that, that whole conversation, that you told us about, and you had a crying crisis, did they bring you some tea, coffee, some cakes, something? When was that exactly?

AK: They brought me things only after I had made some declarations. So, I was there, they were all screaming at me, I only wanted to leave because I was thinking that my mother was arriving, and I said look, can I have my telephone, because I want to call my mom. They said no, and there was this big mess with them shouting at me, threatening me, and it was only after I made declarations that they started saying "No, no, don't worry, we'll protect you," and that's how it happened.

LG: Then you stayed in the Questura?

AK: Yes.

LG: Then, at midday, or one o'clock, we don't know exactly, they brought you a paper called an arrest warrant. When they served you this warrant, it must have been around twelve, one o'clock. Do you remember?

AG: So, all papers they brought me to sign, at that point, they were all the same to me, so I can't even say what I had to sign, arrest warrant, declarations, whatever, because at a certain point, I just wanted to sign and go home.

LG: Right. But instead?

AK: Instead, no. After a while they told me I had to stay in the Questura, so I had to stay, and I rolled up in a fetal position to try to sleep, on a chair, and I fell asleep, then I woke up, and I was there thinking and some people were going in and out, and during this period of time, I was telling them: "Look, I am really confused, these things don't seem like what I remember, I remember something else." And they said "No no no no no, you just stay quiet, you will remember it all later. So just stay quiet and wait, wait, wait, because we have to check some things." And at that point I just didn't understand anything. I even lost my sense of time.

LG: And I wanted to ask you after how long they took you to prison. At some point there was a car, a police wagon that took you to prison. After how much time was that? You don't know?

AK: Well, I can't say, but what I can say is that I stayed a while in the Questura, and during that time I kept trying to explain to the police that what I had said was not certain, and they took my shoes during that time and they took some pictures, they undressed me to take the pictures, and so
it seemed like a long time.

LG: So it was between this time and the time you went to prison that you rote the memorial?

AK: Yes. I wrote it there because, I asked to do it because I was telling them "Listen, you're not hearing me, give me a piece of paper, and I'll write this down in English to be sure you understand what I'm saying." But I couldn't really say that. I just said "Look, I'll give you a present." [Laughs.] It was because I wasn't really able to speak or understand then. So I wrote that, but after I wrote the first pages, I was in the middle of writing this emorandum, they suddenly said "Hurry up, hurry up, finish because we have to take you to prison." I stayed there like...I didn't expect to go to prison, I hought maybe I hadn't understood. I asked the policemen, the people who ere around me, there, "But Why? I haven't done anything." And they said no, it's just bureaucracy. At least that's what I understood.

 

[tsig]

Why not? It happened.

So Amanda swiveled her hips and got convicted of murder?

Back to the cartwheel!!

 

[tsig]

tsig,

Dr. Giobbi himself said that one of the things that made him suspicious of Amanda is that she swiveled her hips in a way that was like that of Italian porn stars. This occurred when she put her foot into protective covers and said something like Viola. She was questioned about this incident during her testimony.
Did you think I meant something else? Thank you for your concern about my arguments.

I do find it hard to believe that hip swiveling would be admissible as evidence of guilt in any court.

 

[tsig]

Cite

1.45 or 5.45 ??

Or shall we move on.

You appear to have a low opinion of AK, you wont take her word for anything instead referring to the works of Dempsey.
There could be a role for you in Perugia PD - they are equally skeptical of her utterances.


.

Esp. after her alibi broke down and she accused (induced internalized false confessed) an innocent man into jail.

 

[Mary_H]

Who said it?

In the original trial, Judge Giancarlo Massei demonstrated in his 427-page reasoning that he and his jury took certain liberties and made a number of assumptions, especially when it came to issues like motive, where they used hypothetical scenarios to back up their theory—and their convictions.

Credit goes to Knox’s lawyers for focusing on the most preposterous parts of this very complicated case. They do a particularly convincing job with the convicting judge’s inclusion of a mystery second knife. In his reasoning, the judge wrote that the jury assumed that a second knife that was never found was surely used to inflict the wounds on Kercher’s neck that were not compatible with the actual knife that was entered into evidence—the one that had Knox’s DNA on the handle and what the prosecution argued was Kercher’s DNA on a tiny groove on the blade. The jury went so far as to assume that the second knife was surely Sollecito’s, for he was an avid knife collector with many blades in his collection that could have made those wounds. Problem is, no one ever mentioned that in court. In fact, the existence of a second knife, Team Knox asserts, was never entered into evidence and as such, should not have appeared in the judge’s reasoning for his conviction.

Yes, that's right -- Barbie Latza Nadeau.

Amanda Knox's Appeal: Could She Go Free?

Her defense team has assembled a sharp, powerful appeal that could retry the case from top to bottom.

http://www.thedailybeast.com/blogs-and-stories/2010-11-18/amanda-knoxs-appeal-could-she-go-free/2/

 

[Kaosium]

Esp. after her alibi broke down and she accused (induced internalized false confessed) an innocent man into jail.

Who did the arresting here? Who actually put him in jail?

Don't you suppose at least twelve police officers, all grown adults, are capable of evaluating the information they receive through interrogation procedures? BTW, who 'broke' this alibi in the first place?

Imagine a twenty year-old college student, in earnest, went into a police station in your hometown and told the police officers there she might have had a 'repressed memory' of being at a murder scene but she couldn't see much very clearly or quite understand it but wanted to help. If they were to go out immediately and arrest the person and charge him with murder and not release him for two weeks despite people coming forward within days of his arrest to provide an alibi, who would you look askance at?

Now how does that change if the police spent at least three hours brow-beating that girl and filling her head with nonsense about having 'hard evidence' of Patrick at the cottage, that her memories were faulty because they say her boyfriend claimed she left, and that she needed a couple whups upside the head to get her memories 'straight?'

It's interesting to see some of the things police were saying a mere six days after the arrests, eleven days after the murder:

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,310637,00.html

"Amanda Knox, the American student who claims that she was not even present when her British roommate, Meredith Kercher, was murdered, was caught on closed-circuit television entering the house on the evening of the crime.

Police in the Italian city of Perugia said that the image was "clear cut,"

The CCTV image of Knox was timed at 8.43 p.m. on the night of the killing. Forensic experts have put the time of Kercher's death at some time between 8.30 p.m. and 11 p.m.

Police questioned a Swiss professor today who, together with other witnesses, said that he could back up Lumumba's claim that he was at his bar in Perugia on the evening of the murder. The professor, who has not been named, told police that he was at Lumumba's bar between 8 p.m. and 10 p.m.

Police questioned him for seven hours, but said that they had found his confirmation of Lumumba's alibi unconvincing. He was able to confirm that he had been at Lumumba's bar on the evening of the murder, but could not swear the bar owner had been present throughout. Giuseppe Sereni, Lumunba's lawyer, said he would produce 20 other witnesses to back up his client's alibi.

A report issued by Judge Claudia Matteini alleges that Kercher was sexually abused by Knox, Sollecito and Lumumba before being stabbed in the throat.

The last is the most intriguing in a sense. Here it is November 12th and Matteini is alleging Amanda, Raffaele and Patrick all sexually abused Meredith, yet none of that ever occurred. What information did they base this allegation on, and how did it change? Meredith's body is at this point back in Britain, did they send it back to Italy for further tests? Whose reports led to Matteini making this absurd declaration, I wonder?


BTW, they interrogate this professor for seven hours? What on earth could have taken so long? It appears they really didn't want to accept any alibi for Patrick!

 

[Kevin_Lowe]

This thread has gotten bogged down in irrelevant minutiae again, I think.

I still want to hear a coherent prosecution narrative consistent with Meredith dying at 21:10 or so.

I also still want to hear a coherent prosecution narrative consistent with Amanda and Raffaele being at home mucking about with the computer from 6pm to 1am, when Meredith died somewhere between 21:05 and (being more generous than strict adherence to scientific facts would allow) 23:30.

So far all we've seen are evasive responses and outright denial of the facts. If we have multiple posters here convinced of their guilt, why can't we get a single coherent story that fits the facts, makes some kind of sense and has them murdering Meredith Kercher?

 

[odeed]

Are you claiming it is false?

Yes, I believe the that Dempsey's story of Knox, Sollecito and Lumumba being paraded/driven around Perugia on the 6th November to be false.

Since you have been repeating the story

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/socia...nda-knox-accused-of-sl_n_595759_49273472.html
http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=6432094&postcount=10396
http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=5992657&postcount=572
http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=5947215&postcount=12869
http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=6113605&postcount=3474
http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=6375494&postcount=7609
http://perugia-shock.blogspot.com/2...howComment=1284241875901#c1958514519953625076
http://s1.zetaboards.com/Liestoppers_meeting/single/?p=400610&t=2609363

do you have any evidence to say it is true?

 

[Withnail1969]

This thread has gotten bogged down in irrelevant minutiae again, I think.

I still want to hear a coherent prosecution narrative consistent with Meredith dying at 21:10 or so.

I also still want to hear a coherent prosecution narrative consistent with Amanda and Raffaele being at home mucking about with the computer from 6pm to 1am, when Meredith died somewhere between 21:05 and (being more generous than strict adherence to scientific facts would allow) 23:30.

So far all we've seen are evasive responses and outright denial of the facts. If we have multiple posters here convinced of their guilt, why can't we get a single coherent story that fits the facts, makes some kind of sense and has them murdering Meredith Kercher?

The trouble is it's so difficult to make anything fit the 'facts' given the hodgepodge of lying or unreliable 'witnesses' dredged up by Mignini.

How come eagle eye Curatolo doesn't see Rudy with Amanda and Raff? At what point in the evening did they get incredibly drunk and high given that they were at the basketball court for at least 2 hours? How come during the period they were at the basketball court Meredith's phones ping a previously unused cell tower? Wasn't the tow truck near the cottage until at least 11:30? why didn't they hear Nara's scream and running on leaves?

etc etc. This is why the guilters mostly resort to sarcasm and evasion. There are simply no sensible answers to these questions.

 

[Fine]

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,

_______________________

Kermit,

Here's what Nick Pisa reported:

"Sollecito has always claimed to have been at home working on his computer the night Meredith was killed and today's hearing was to appoint independent technical experts to examine the PC's hard drive.

His lawyer Marco Brusco said at the end of the two hour hearng:"My client gave the court information on the computer, it actually belongs to his sister, but he told them the password and how to access the files." ( Nick Pisa )

For whatever reason, he'd been using his sister's computer since July.

///