Continuation - Discussion of the Amanda Knox case

[Alt+F4]

Here is a new article regarding what the cell mate is suppose to be testifying to.
http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-504083_162-6271397-504083.html
Also, I believe he confessed to the Polizei that there was either a man standing over Meredith's body masturbating or that another man might have raped her. Which was later thrown out by Italy's supreme court. Yet you say the defense is conceding that meredith could be murdered by someone that left no dna. However, I've said it before. there is plenty of unknown dna in that room. It just belongs to someone other than Guede, Meredith, Rudy, or Sollecito. Thats not counting the untested semen sample.

I'm not sure what you mean by "plenty" of unknown DNA in Meredith's bedroom.

 

[Alt+F4]

Anyone can be coerced into making a false confession of murder.

Anyone except Amanda Knox.

 

[platonov]

One of the more interesting false confession cases. Four men actually confessed to murdering 9 Buddhist monks outside of Phoenix, AZ. The crime occurred in 1991, but this article just appeared in yesterday's paper:

http://www.azcentral.com/community/...1/20101121arizona-buddhist-temple-murder.html

One quick quote:

After an exhaustive study of Arizona's infamous Buddhist temple murder case, attorney-author Gary L. Stuart arrived at a conclusion that average folks may find hard to accept: Anyone can be coerced into making a false confession of murder.

"Most of us think we are too smart, too strong, too self-confident to ever confess to a crime we didn't commit," Stuart told an audience at Arizona State University's school of law last week. "But it could happen to us."

More 'evidence by anecdote' - have we had this one already ? it rings a bell.

.

 

[Mary_H]

More 'evidence by anecdote' - have we had this one already ? it rings a bell.

.

I wouldn't call it evidence by anecdote; you can ignore the anecdote. It's more along the lines of "anyone can get the flu" or "anyone can get in a car accident."

 

[Mary_H]

No Kaosium I'm afraid you are confusing different interrogations yet again.

The Dec 17 interrogation transcript was part of the court file.

The defense even brought up this interrogation during AK's own testimony, referring to the reasons for the termination of it by AK - to try an undo the damage done by her inability on that occasion [Dec17] to explain the Nov 6 accusation of PL.

See earlier posts - which also by a happy coincidence dispatched the 'internalized false confession' trope.

.

It did?

 

[TomCH]

Why would a tape of an interrogation that lead to the signing of a 'confession' and 'accusation' be destroyed? I can't think of a good reason.

There was no need to destroy something that never existed in the first place.

Interviews with witnesses are NOT recorded, and she was a witness at this point, and thus no such tape ever existed.

End of story.

 

[Katody Matrass]

It did?

I see P is still cherishing his imaginary victory.

"inability to explain" is a product of P's imagination, he never produced anything to support it.
Amanda explained the circumstances of the unlawful interrogation very well, first in her written note, then on Dec 17 and in court. All that accounts are coherent and indicate an internalized false confession.

Reading P you need to apply some translation, e.g. dispatched really means conjured reality away.

 

[Chris C]

By that logic, it is also an untested BLOOD sample.

What it is, is simply an unknown and untested stain, nothing more.

I think it was crime scope they used on the stain. Which showed it to be body fluid and not blood. Now come on guys, lets be honest. How many body fluids does the human body have that stains sheets or pillow cases, not counting blood since that has been ruled out.

 

[TomCH]

I think it was crime scope they used on the stain. Which showed it to be body fluid and not blood. Now come on guys, lets be honest. How many body fluids does the human body have that stains sheets or pillow cases, not counting blood since that has been ruled out.

Snot?

Saliva?

Phlegm?

 

[LondonJohn]

There was no need to destroy something that never existed in the first place.

Interviews with witnesses are NOT recorded, and she was a witness at this point, and thus no such tape ever existed.

End of story.

Really? Why were the phone calls and private conversations of "witnesses" recorded then? Your "end of story" declaration may not be as certain as you seem to think it is.

 

[Katody Matrass]

Really? Why were the phone calls and private conversations of "witnesses" recorded then? Your "end of story" declaration may not be as certain as you seem to think it is.

I remember Mignini admitting all witness interviews were recorded. He said they "forgot" to record that one.

 

[LondonJohn]

I remember Mignini admitting all witness interviews were recorded. He said they "forgot" to record that one.

Wasn't it (IIRC) something to do with them being "caught by surprise" and "didn't have time to set up the necessary equipment" or something like that? In the Police HQ. Which must have had numerous rooms with recording equipment. At 11 O'Clock on a Monday night. Which is not exactly rush hour for police interviews. Yeah, sounds plausible....

 

[LondonJohn]

Snot?

Saliva?

Phlegm?

I'm sure that Meredith was just the kind of girl to deposit large gobs of phlegm, saliva or snot on her pillowcase. But testing it will sort out exactly what it is. And if it's biological matter, to whom it belongs. Then everyone will know what should have been known long before the first trial.

 

[Charlie Wilkes]

I think it was crime scope they used on the stain. Which showed it to be body fluid and not blood. Now come on guys, lets be honest. How many body fluids does the human body have that stains sheets or pillow cases, not counting blood since that has been ruled out.

I think it could easily be many things other than semen. I would go as far as to guess say it is most likely something else. But it might be semen, and if it is, it may add to our understanding of what happened that night. And of course that is why the court has denied the request. They do not want clarity. They fear the truth.

 

[Charlie Wilkes]

Hmmm. An interesting point, katy_did. So, what did Amanda know---or fear---when interrogated by Mignini on December 17, 2007?

The first time Amanda spoke of her bath mat boggie---while interrogated by Mignini in prison---she may have feared, without any confirmation, that her bloody footprints had already been discovered, in the corridor, her bedroom, or the bathroom. And it may have been that Mignini's questions to her suggested such a state-of-affairs.

It would be interesting to know exactly what question Mignini asked her, which led to her account of the bath mat boogie. Was she explicitly answering his question....or, instead, digressing, to explain feared Luminol tests of the past, or in anticipation of the next day's Luminol tests?

///

Your thinking is garbled. First, if she was worried that her footprints might be found, she should have told Mignini that she stepped in the blood in the bathroom and then walked to her room. The "bathmat boogie" is not exculpatory, and yet she volunteered this information when she need not have done so.

Second, if she was worried about footprints in the corridor, she should have been far more worried about footprints inside the room where the murder took place. But she wasn't. She wasn't thinking about luminol, or footprints, or any kind of forensic examination. She was desperately trying to get Mignini to realize she is innocent.

 

[Fine]

Hi, Fine, I noticed you are not afraid of hypothesizing. Maybe you could help with creating a coherent guilt hypothesis based on Massei? A believable train of events, actions and motives, starting with the reason AK and RS switched phones off, took a knife and went out to loiter on Piazza Grimana?

___________________

Katody Matrass,

Why does a scenario have to be based on Massei? I've already sketched a scenario which is consistent and not implausible. It was a flatmate dispute, which spiralled out of control, ...and it doesn't involve switching off phones, taking the knife, or loitering at any piazza. I don't know how Raffaele's knife got there. Maybe he'd left it at the cottage when he prepared the lovebirds' meal the afternoon of November 1st. Maybe it was part of a "picnic package" placed in Amanda's bag for their planned trip to Gubbio the next day. Must everything be explained before anyone is convicted?

What we want to know is the motive, and that is a tough question. I'm inclined to think that Meredith---outmanned 3 to 1--- had armed herself, and so someone stabbed her "in self-defense." It's also possible that she was stabbed "by mistake"......in the heat of the struggle, Amanda shouted something-or-other in her train-wreck Italian that Rudy or Raffaele heard as "stab her," "kill her," or something along those lines. (Remember that bewildering dispute between Amanda and Filomena about Meredith being disposed to lock her door? Amanda's train-wreck Italian in action.) Or maybe no motive at all, pure accident. One of the suspects had shoved Meredith, not knowing that it would throw her into the path of the knife.

But motive is a tough question in a LONEWOLF scenario, too. Why would Rudy stab her, especially if---as the lack of defensive wounds is thought to illustrate---she had not resisted his advances? Why not just leave? Rarely do sexual assaults end in murder, and if Rudy had just left, and Meredith had called the cops, it would have come down to his word against hers as to whether she had been forced to have sex. Sure, sexual assaults occasionally lead to murder. So do flatmate disputes.

Would anyone care to explain why Raffaele---if fully innocent as charged---refused to be interrogated during his first trial??? And now, holy cow!, once convicted, would do the same during the appeal trial? (No need to mention again his bubble gum pink attire.) He seems afraid to testify. I wonder why.

///

 

[billyryan]

The two possible semen stains were on the pillow case that was underneath meridiths hips when her body was discovered,if my memory serves me correct.The two stains were right between meridiths legs.Whoever left them there if they are semen,left them there because he raped a dead or dying girl.

Did Rudy not get a sentence reduction for his partial apology to merediths family for not having done enough to save her.If it proves to be semen and rudy's there must be some consequences for his sentence reduction,as I think far from trying to save her he raped her as she lay dying

Who gets to test the stains surely not stefanoni,she is by no means an impartial operater at this stage

 

[platonov]

We've developed an immunity.

I wouldn't call it evidence by anecdote; you can ignore the anecdote. It's more along the lines of "anyone can get the flu" or "anyone can get in a car accident."

We've already been exposed to this strain [and several others, repeatedly] and developed an immunity.

.

 

[platonov]

I prefer direct testimony.

I see P is still cherishing his imaginary victory.

"inability to explain" is a product of P's imagination, he never produced anything to support it.Amanda explained the circumstances of the unlawful interrogation very well, first in her written note, then on Dec 17 and in court. All that accounts are coherent and indicate an internalized false confession.

Reading P you need to apply some translation, e.g. dispatched really means conjured reality away.

I didnt need to - you helpfully supplied AK's own testimony that explained the circumstances

While your opinions and those of C Dempsey & Frank S etc etc etc etc
[and opinions of their opinions] are always welcome, as I said before I prefer direct testimony.

Your ability to interpret [translate] what AK really meant* might have been helpful in court but, alas, the court also prefers to hear things 1st hand where possible.

* The FOAker argument seems to depend to a large extent on interpreting what AK meant - she is an honors student, surely she can be allowed to speak for herself.
Admittedly this hasn't worked out so well but .....

.

 

[billyryan]

Why would raffaele refuse to testify

1)Because his lawyers decided on that tactic
2)He was aware that mignini would analise his evidence,which would like in the case of Amanda despite being a mockary of jusdice lead to more charges