Continuation - Discussion of the Amanda Knox case

[RoseMontague]

No. There's no way things would have got this far already, if Knox had indeed left Sollecito in his apartment that evening. What conceivable motivation would Sollecito have to take the joint rap for a murder he had nothing to do with - decades in prison versus 6 days' relationship with a temporary foreign student...

On the same subject, I also believe it's unthinkable that Sollecito - if he had nothing to do with the murder on the night of the 1st - might somehow have been persuaded to knowingly help to clean up the murder scene the following day. I can hardly imagine his girlfriend of six days rushing in breathless at 1am saying something like: "Erm, something weird just happened at my place - Rudy and I were fooling around with Meredith, but somehow she ended up stabbed to death. Would you please help me to conceal my involvement by helping me to clean up and stage a break-in in the morning?" And I can even less imagine Sollecito replying something like "Oh sure, honey. No biggie. How about a nice hot chocolate to calm you down?".....

Thanks,
I was wondering what was in that secret statement.

 

[LondonJohn]

Thanks,
I was wondering what was in that secret statement.

 

[shuttlt]

Why do the computer logs change the evidentiary value of Curatolo's testimony? Curatolo had no effect on the logs and the computer was not dictating Curatolo's testimony.

I thought the computer logs were supposed to prove that they were home all night? If they were home all night Curatolo must be lying/mistaken.

If the logs existed but were erased, would that have somehow made Curatolo's testimony factual?

Of course not.

"Might have left the house" is not good enough for a murder charge. The concept of "Presumption of Innocence" requires us to assume that Amanda and Raffaele were not present at the time of the murder. It is the prosecutions duty to prove otherwise.

I thought that they definitely did leave the house was implicitly demonstrated by whatever evidence the prosecution have that demonstrates they were involved in the crime. Presumably the judge and jury bought all the stuff about the knife, bra strap and so on?

 

[moodstream]

So what? They are the victims. Victims of crime should be compensated.

But that was not the point of my post. Why the lack of consideration here for the Kerchers?

what lack of consideration?

 

[Katody Matrass]

I thought that they definitely did leave the house was implicitly demonstrated by whatever evidence the prosecution have that demonstrates they were involved in the crime. Presumably the judge and jury bought all the stuff about the knife, bra strap and so on?

If you try to construct a hypothetical scenario based on the court's findings you quickly notice that is not that easy ( if at all possible) and often requires suspension of disbelief and questionable assumptions.

 

[shuttlt]

In any case, if there really is computer evidence that proves they were at home all night the rest of the case hardly matters. It certainly seems like a simpler way of clearing up this case than the stomach contents, phone logs and so forth.

 

[Kestrel]

what lack of consideration?

Apparently it was the failure of the Knox family to abandon their daughter when she was accused of being a murderer.

 

[Chris_Halkides]

please specify

I will post on this thread however I wish, regardless of your gratitude.

How do you feel about those here who have denegrated Meredith's family? The real victims here?

lionking,

You have not given an example of something you consider to be denigration. In addition, you have said nothing about those who denigrate the Knox, Mellas, or Sollicito families. Therefore, you question is poorly focused and biased.

 

[moodstream]

________________________

Well, you are correct, Halides, the article I cited does not explicitly quote Raffaele and so your interpretation is the best one. Judge Matteini, in speaking of Raffaele's "retraction" was referring to his retraction before the cops.I stand corrected. I was also mistaken about the date of his interrogation before Judge Matteini. That happened on November 8, 2007. The judge's REPORT was released on November 9, 2007.

That said, I'll continue to believe that on November 8 Raffaele was still blaming Amanda for persuading him to lie to the cops. How else to explain his statement of November 13---released by his attorney---in which he blamed Amanda for his arrest? If he had lied to the cops about Amanda's whereabouts---using his own "free will"---would he not be blaming himself for his arrest?

Is this a fair reflection of your view: You believe Amanda Knox directed Sollecito to lie to the police about her whereabouts on the evening of the crime. The sole reason for your belief rests in a statement released on Nov 13th by Sollecito's attorney.



So, if this thread is cut, if it can be shown that Sollecito was not intending to imply that Amanda Knox directed him to lie to the police via the Nov 13th statement, you will admit that Amanda Knox did not direct Sollecito to lie to the police?

Further, do you believe this proposition: Amanda Knox lied to avoid blame for the crime, and/or lied to place the blame on someone else?

If so, can you cite statements made by Knox or Sollecito, (aside from the above) that cannot be understood reasonably to have an alternative meaning, (the reasonable alternative) making it true that the the proposition -Knox lied - cannot be established as fact based on your reading of the statement?

If so, could you be so troubled to list the statements made by Knox that *must* be lies - that is, untrue statements not made under duress, made with knowledge of the truth, given with the purpose and intent to deceive, or to shift or avoid blame, for the murder of Ms Kercher?

In addition, could you please take a moment to clarify the basis of your belief that Sollecito's statement of Nov 13th, whereby he blames himself for his arrest, allow no other reasonable interpretation than the the conclusion that Knox directed him to lie to the police on Nov 5th?


If you are basing your belief in Knox's guilt on the proposition that Knox lied, then you should have no difficulty in establishing for the benefit of all here on this forum what statements you base your beliefs upon.

And, if it turns out reasonable and likely alternative meanings for those statements exist, then, unless you yourself wish to lie, you will no longer be able to continue to say Knox is guilty because she lied to avoid culpability.

You could say despite the existence of a reasonable explanations to the contrary, I wish to believe that Knox lied. Or, other factors support Knox's guilt, which, if true, show that she lied.

The fundamental question I am asking you is, are your beliefs derived from facts, or are your facts derived from your beliefs?

 

[Chris C]

The weight isn't the only factor at issue. We are looking at an exponential decay of the body loosing heat to the environment. Tenths of a degree difference in the final body temperature or the estimated ambient temperature result in hours of difference in the estimated time of death. Yet Lalli only measured to the nearest degree. The insulation factor changes the time scale and can result in a large error yet this factor was only roughly estimated.

The ambient temperature was measured a couple of times but there was no measure of the temperature in the cottage overnight after the murder. If the heat was turned off, the whole cottage would have cooled off rapidly with the door and window open. If the heat was on, meredith's room would have gotten much hotter as the heat tried to compensate for the draft.

There are calculators online for ToD calculations based on body temperature.
Ie: http://www.swisswuff.ch/calculators/todeszeit.php

If you play with the numbers in the calculator, you soon realize how inaccurate this estimate is.

Dr. Lalli was prevented from taking the temperature until after the forensics team was done with the body. Which means it was past the 24 hour mark when he took it. At which point, if I remember correctly the body was approaching room temperature in the apartment.

 

[Mary_H]

Amanda Knox and Raffaele Sollecito are still considered innocent under Italian law.

Right. As Rose has pointed out, John Kercher is 100% convinced of Amanda's guilt, and he is just waiting for the second appeal to be over, so she can be convicted again. To make a public statement to that effect is to deny Amanda the right to the presumption of innocence and a fair trial. Kercher might as well have written it before the first trial.

The fact is, if Amanda is justifiably acquitted, John Kercher will find himself in an uncomfortable position. He actually will be responsible for inflicting more pain on the other families than they have been responsible for inflicting on him. The position he has taken in his recent essay is assertive, directed and purposeful; in other words, he has gone on the offensive. I'm not sure the same can be said for the defendants' families.

 

[billyryan]

I'm afraid Kevin is not right on this (and you have misinterpreted C's evidence )

See links from this post/exchange.





You might need to check some of these 'factoids' - you seem to be stuck on some earlier 'talking points' that have long since been disabused.

OT ? musing - Is there something about the name 'Knox' that lends itself to the popularity of this particular convict.

Platonov:
If at some stage in the future,videos an photographs and eye witness accounts of the perugian police perading three very traumatised suspects through the streets of Perugia in a completely unesessary way,would you be prepared to admit that a police force that behaved in that way would be quite capable of hitting a defendent at the back of the head during her interogation

 

[Chris_Halkides]

diary

That said, I'll continue to believe that on November 8 Raffaele was still blaming Amanda for persuading him to lie to the cops. How else to explain his statement of November 13---released by his attorney---in which he blamed Amanda for his arrest? If he had lied to the cops about Amanda's whereabouts---using his own "free will"---would he not be blaming himself for his arrest?

I wish I could find some source---in English or Italian---which quotes verbatim Raffaele's statements before Judge Matteini concerning this delicate issue.....whether Amanda is to blame for his lies.

///

Fine,

I think Raffaele may have blamed Amanda because she implicated Lumumba. I have not read his diary in a while, but received the impression that IlE was telling him fibs during his incarceration.

 

[Amazer]

lionking,

You have not given an example of something you consider to be denigration. In addition, you have said nothing about those who denigrate the Knox, Mellas, or Sollicito families. Therefore, you question is poorly focused and biased.

Halides1,

Is it really necessary for Lionking to provide you with examples? Have you become so caught up in this case that you are no longer capable of identifying those instances for yourself?

Amazer

 

[platonov]

Dempsey's Circus is back in town.

Platonov:
If at some stage in the future,videos an photographs and eye witness accounts of the perugian police perading three very traumatised suspects through the streets of Perugia in a completely unesessary way,would you be prepared to admit that a police force that behaved in that way would be quite capable of hitting a defendent at the back of the head during her interogation

Well, that was much simpler than is usual

No,* as it happens but as you are happy to drop all the other false claims/talking points so easily (she didn't have a lawyer for obvious reasons) I'm happy to let Dempsey's Circus pass.

There was much discussion on it recently but no evidence was produced - other than the fact that the normal transport of Suspects in a high profile case took place.
I didn't get involved - given the source of the story, it was obviously nonsense and of little import either way except to show certain sources cant be trusted to 'report' even extraneous matters accurately.

*I fail to see the connection here in any case - we already have discussed the interrogation at length. In certain cases the cops may well be tempted to heavyhandedness but not in this one I'd imagine (for very obvious reasons)

 

[Machiavelli]

I wonder if the Kerchers will extend their apologies and condolences to the Knoxes, Mellases and Sollecitos if Amanda and Raffaele are fully acquitted.

Let me make an educated guess. I think they (and I) would never contemplate apologies, but would extend compassion and sympathy to Amanda Knox and Raffaele Sollecito and their families after they have served a significant part of their sentence, thus after they too had suffered not an equal but a comparable feeling of perpetual loss, and have acknwoledged (Amanda and Raffaele) their responsabilities by telling what happened.
And if Amanda and Raffaele still want to claim inocence, they should be able to give consistent explainations for why they told many false stories, and show they are able to acknowledge and understand what a reliable person would say and should say if involved in an investigation where your roommate was found dead.

 

[billyryan]

Well that was much simpler than is usual.

No,* as it happens but as you are happy to drop all the other false claims/talking points so easily (she didn't have a lawyer for obvious reasons) I'm happy to let Dempsey's Circus pass.

There was much discussion on it recently but no evidence was produced - other than the fact that the normal transport of Suspects in a high profile case took place.
I didn't get involved - given the source of the story, it was obviously nonsense and of little import either way except to show certain sources cant even get extraneous matters right.

*I fail to see the connection here in any case - we already have discussed the interrogation at length. In certain cases the cops may well be tempted to heavyhandedness but not in this one I'd imagine (for very obvious reasons)

It was very big news in Perugia on November 6/ 2007 there was a lot of press and cameras around,though probally only Italian and maybe British at that stage,It would probally be against the law to humiliate their suspects like that.
By your hiliting of the word NO you are happy anyway even if something embarrasing turns up in the future,that even if the police broke the law in front of the cameras,they were meticilous in protecting Amanda's rights behind closed doors

 

[Machiavelli]

Right. As Rose has pointed out, John Kercher is 100% convinced of Amanda's guilt, and he is just waiting for the second appeal to be over, so she can be convicted again. To make a public statement to that effect is to deny Amanda the right to the presumption of innocence and a fair trial. Kercher might as well have written it before the first trial.

The fact is, if Amanda is justifiably acquitted, John Kercher will find himself in an uncomfortable position. He actually will be responsible for inflicting more pain on the other families than they have been responsible for inflicting on him. The position he has taken in his recent essay is assertive, directed and purposeful; in other words, he has gone on the offensive. I'm not sure the same can be said for the defendants' families.

To insinuate Mignini is corrupt is not offensive? To affirm police planted evidence is not offensive? To convey experts and judges are idiots is not offensive? To tell lies about the case and the evidence and make hypocrite statements on television is not offensive? To feed a media cult of Amanda Knox on the media is not offensive?

 

[platonov]

It was very big news in Perugia on November 6/ 2007 there was a lot of press and cameras around,though probally only Italian and maybe British at that stage,It would probally be against the law to humiliate their suspects like that.
By your hiliting of the word NO you are happy anyway even if something embarrasing turns up in the future,that even if the police broke the law in front of the cameras,they were meticilous in protecting Amanda's rights behind closed doors

Forget the circus - I have just bolded the salient part of my reply.
Why do Foakers insist on ignoring the more important issues to concenrate on 'fluff' which wont win any debates or more importantly, court cases.

 

[Kaosium]

To insinuate Mignini is corrupt is not offensive? To affirm police planted evidence is not offensive? To convey experts and judges are idiots is not offensive? To tell lies about the case and the evidence and make hypocrite statements on television is not offensive? To feed a media cult of Amanda Knox on the media is not offensive?

If you believed Amanda Knox and Raffaele Sollecito were innocent, how would you make the case without any of the above?