Continuation - Discussion of the Amanda Knox case

[capealadin]

I understand completely, Truethat. From page 187, I think, one can get a pretty good overview. Good post, btw.

 

[treehorn]

It's just a fact that witnesses are very imperfect, far more so than most people who haven't studied the issue believe.

Are you under the impression that ALL witnesses are equally "imperfect"/ unreliable?

Why don't we do away with witness testimony altogether?

Let's face it, it's just such a hassle for judges and jurors to sort through which witnesses can be trusted and which ones cannot. And those experts?! Their technical 'mumbo jumbo' is so damned inscrutable...

In fact, in light of all the uncertainty and complexity, let's just stop trying to enforce the law altogether.

Let 'em all go. Every man for himself. Tear up the Social Contract! Let's return to a state of nature and live short, brutal lives as savages.

 

[Kaosium]

If a dirty cop had any intelligence they would know better than to manufacture iron-clad evidence. Since the bra clasp and knife evidence are so weak, the prosecution can simply claim the result was an error when the computer records that provide an alibi are found to be unimpeachable.

Finally found this again! Did you come to any conclusion or at least suspicion of what the defense is claiming they have outside the initial report of 'activity all night with the longest gap 6 minutes' or somesuch?

 

[platonov]

Its not trial by combat

It's just a fact that witnesses are very imperfect, far more so than most people who haven't studied the issue believe.

However if everything about Curatolo's evidence was kosher except for the buses I think we'd look more leniently on him. His late arrival with his evidence, his previous history of coming forward with convenient evidence for the police, the fact that his story meshes perfectly with the Massei/Mignini time of death which turned out to be a ridiculous contrivance combined with the bus issue are all significant strikes against him even before it turned out that the computer evidence looks likely to completely contradict him.

There's also a huge difference between arguing that inaccuracies in your testimony mean you are unreliable, and arguing that inaccuracies in your testimony mean that you are a murderer. Nobody's arguing that because Curatolo got the buses wrong that therefore he must be hiding something and therefore he must have murdered Meredith Kercher.

It's just a fact that the statements of suspects, in the days immediately after a murder, regarding their whereabouts & alibis are of more importance* and are subjected to more scrutiny than those of uninvolved eyewitnesses who come forward much later.

Indeed if the evidence of a 'potential' witness is not accepted they are not subsequently jailed for the murder in place of the defendants - the evidence is simply 'discarded'.

*Far more so than most people who haven't studied the issue believe.

 

[Fine]

A Solid Fortnight On The Perugian Railroad

If you can't provide a narrative which is consistent with the scientific facts, then my job is done. I've demonstrated that your belief in the guilt of Knox and Sollecito is faith-based and irrational.

If you want to keep holding that faith-based belief, I can't stop you.

* * *
Remember Meredith died on the 2nd of November, and police arrested Amanda, Raffaele and Lumumba on the 6th. Rudy wasn't even on the police's radar until the 19th, and Lumumba wasn't released until the 20th. There was a solid fortnight when the police had been telling the public "case closed, we solved this, we have all three murderers, we're good" when in fact they had three innocent people that they were railroading and no idea who the real killer was.
* * *

Kevin,

We know that Meredith didn't die on that date. (So, a typing error, I suppose.)

More importantly, I think you're making a mistake in saying that Rudy wasn't on the cops' radar until November 19, the day of his arrest. He was on their radar much earlier. Do you know that Rudy was arrested in Germany ---not for failure to buy a train ticket--- but because the Perugian Police had already issued a warrant for his arrest?

Rudy's bloody fingerprint was found on a pillow in Meredith's bedroom on November 3rd, and collected by the Forensic Police on that date. So, I think it's reasonable to assume that the fingerprint was matched to Rudy Guede in early November. According to Barbie, the cops "quickly matched" the fingerprint to Rudy. (Angel Face, page 73)

///

 

[Chris_Halkides]

Norfolk Four

I don't know anyone who would admit to killing someone or being around someone who killed someone if they weren't there. I don't buy the theory that the authorities bullied her into a confession.

Take a look at this guy

http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2006/02/16/48hours/main1322783.shtml

His friend "dreamed" of killing someone and then said his friend helped him. There was absolutely no forensic evidence to tie either kid to the crime.

Both were sentenced and Ryan Ferguson swore relentlessly that he was innocent. Years later his friend confessed he lied about Ryan's involvement.

Take the Azaria Chamberlain case, her mother swore she had nothing to do with it.

So why is this girl who is freaking out sitting in a police interrogation room for 15 hours changing story after story and then even confessing to know something about the crime, without asking for a break or a lawyer. She has stated she asked for a lawyer so she knew to do that. Why not call her parents immediately and wait for their arrival.

I just don't believe people will confess to something they know nothing about.

So that really leads me to believe she knows something, she's just not saying really what it is, maybe she was drugged out her mind when it went down but you don't say you know something when you don't.

truethat,

Amanda’s mother was on her way to Perugia and arrived the next day, IIRC. The police knew of her impending arrival. I’m not sure what you mean by “changing story after story.” You say in essence that you do not believe that there are false confessions. How do you explain the existence of the Norfolk Four?

 

[Malkmus]

I just don't believe people will confess to something they know nothing about.

This is exactly why everyone keeps citing other instances of people confessing to crimes they were never involved in and knew anything about.

But just to clarify your other points, Amanda's story only changed during this interrogation, so to say she changed her story again and again is false and she has also stated that she wasn't allowed any breaks. One of the major things that stinks to me about Amanda's statement of being at that cottage that night is that the details provided by her don't exceed what the police were trying to get out of her. The police were certain she went out that night to meet Patrick based on her text. So they got her to admit to that. But beyond that basic notion there is nothing that Amanda added to the details of that night that anyone else in her seat couldn't have said. The lack of any other information from her as a witness other than what the police already suspected is, well, suspect.

 

[Kevin_Lowe]

Kevin,

We know that Meredith didn't die on that date. (So, a typing error, I suppose.)

More importantly, I think you're making a mistake in saying that Rudy wasn't on the cops' radar until November 19, the day of his arrest. He was on their radar much earlier. Do you know that Rudy was arrested in Germany ---not for failure to buy a train ticket--- but because the Perugian Police had already issued a warrant for his arrest?

Rudy's bloody fingerprint was found on a pillow in Meredith's bedroom on November 3rd, and collected by the Forensic Police on that date. So, I think it's reasonable to assume that the fingerprint was matched to Rudy Guede in early November. According to Barbie, the cops "quickly matched" the fingerprint to Rudy. (Angel Face, page 73)

You bring up a really good point, and one I hadn't thought of up until now. It does matter a great deal when they identified the print as Rudy's.

I was charitably assuming earlier that when they arrested Lumumba they had not yet identified the print as Rudy's. If that is the case then there's no evidence that the police proceeded in bad faith until after the first few days of the investigation.

However if the police had already identified Rudy as the person who left the bloody fingerprint in the murder room when they were browbeating an internalised false confession out of Amanda and arresting Lumumba on that basis their behaviour looks far more sinister. If that turns out to be the case then I think the "Rudy was an informant with police protection" theory gets a huge boost, because why the hell would you be trying to fit up Lumumba when you already have proof that a known criminal with a history of second-storey jobs and knife possession was in the murder room with Meredith's blood all over his hands?

Can anyone shed any light on this? This looks to me like a hugely important "what did they know, and when did they know it" question which I don't recall ever being specifically discussed before.

 

[Malkmus]

Fuji,

The police had already said words to the effect of, case closed, and Amanda Knox's picture was in the hall by Dr. Giobbi's office long before the bra clasp was even collected, for instance. The problem is that if the forensic scientists collect and analyze the evidence after someone is in custody, they run the risk of unconscious investigator bias. There are lengthy posts and citations here and in the previous thread on this subject.

Halides, there has also been another sign we could add to that list, a video I have been curious about for a while. Unfortunately the link is offline so I'm unable to verify its contents. But on the old True Crime forum Kermit had posted a link to a video from Italian news that had aired on November 5th 2007, hours before Amanda Knox and Raffaele were interrogated and made suspects. According to the description of the video by Kermit the police declare to the media that "in the next few hours one of the many persons interviewed in recent days might be converted into a suspect." And that's exactly what happened. Perhaps Kermit or Charlie Wilkes (who was around on that board back then) could share their thoughts.

http://truecrimeweblog.freeforums.org/media-powerpoints-videos-etc-t11.html

(under Italian news coverage)

 

[platonov]

All sorts of reasons. For one, the court system is somewhat archaic and places a ridiculous amount of weight on the verbal testimony of supposed experts. In clear-cut cases there's no real reason why you should need a tenured university professor to front up and say that no, it's just not possible that five and a half hours after eating a small-to-moderate sized meal of pizza and crumble that a normal, healthy young woman would have all of that food still in her stomach in a partially-undigested state.

<snip>

Unlike other forums then ? - I don't believe being an expert witness is as easy as you make it sound.

I know of a forum where a few wanabee 'experts' put forward their google based arguments with great confidence but they were ripped to shreds [simplistic nonsense was one of the kinder reviews] in very short order.

Indeed this happened to arguments proposed on several subjects, one argument was dismissed on the basis that it failed to account for the existence of showers (as well as being laughable) , 2 others failed over simple chronology [being able to tell the time]. Yet another over a simple directional error.
Another stats based argument may yet attain fame for all the wrong reason.

Its not for everyone.

 

[Malkmus]

You bring up a really good point, and one I hadn't thought of up until now. It does matter a great deal when they identified the print as Rudy's.

I was charitably assuming earlier that when they arrested Lumumba they had not yet identified the print as Rudy's. If that is the case then there's no evidence that the police proceeded in bad faith until after the first few days of the investigation.

However if the police had already identified Rudy as the person who left the bloody fingerprint in the murder room when they were browbeating an internalised false confession out of Amanda and arresting Lumumba on that basis their behaviour looks far more sinister. If that turns out to be the case then I think the "Rudy was an informant with police protection" theory gets a huge boost, because why the hell would you be trying to fit up Lumumba when you already have proof that a known criminal with a history of second-storey jobs and knife possession was in the murder room with Meredith's blood all over his hands?

Can anyone shed any light on this? This looks to me like a hugely important "what did they know, and when did they know it" question which I don't recall ever being specifically discussed before.

It is a good question, and the answer should lie in whatever date that fingerprint of Guede's was collected.

 

[platonov]

'New rule' - Make it up as you go along

You bring up a really good point, and one I hadn't thought of up until now [Obviously - platonov ]. It does matter a great deal when they identified the print as Rudy's.
I was charitably assuming earlier that when they arrested Lumumba they had not yet identified the print as Rudy's. If that is the case then there's no evidence that the police proceeded in bad faith until after the first few days of the investigation.

However if the police had already identified Rudy as the person who left the bloody fingerprint in the murder room when they were browbeating an internalised false confession out of Amanda and arresting Lumumba on that basis their behaviour looks far more sinister. If that turns out to be the case then I think the "Rudy was an informant with police protection" theory gets a huge boost, because why the hell would you be trying to fit up Lumumba when you already have proof that a known criminal with a history of second-storey jobs and knife possession was in the murder room with Meredith's blood all over his hands?

Can anyone shed any light on this? This looks to me like a hugely important "what did they know, and when did they know it" question which I don't recall ever being specifically discussed before.

I'll have a go

So the the maxim A "Evidence collected after a suspect has been identified is worthless" has suddenly been dropped from the canon. That was short lived - Sic transit gloria mundi

Now its a case of 'hold the innocent guy while we decide whether to sell out our own stool pigeon'

Man, this is a very fluid and complicated situation. Is there some sort of 'black book' with all these 'plays'

Will maxim A ever returns to its former status ?
- It is a good question, and the answer should lie in whatever date that fingerprint of Guede's was collected and more importantly, identified.

 

[Malkmus]

RW, I am ashamed to say I haven't been to the doctor in years. I'm a single working mom and tend to worry more about my son, and neglect myself. I need to find a doctor now, I was going to try to see my mom's but I need to find out if she is in network for my insurance. We are changing insurance companies January 1st, and I doubt I will get an appointment before then.

Solange, I totally understand your situation, and am not ashamed to say I avoid the doctor like the plague, despite being insured as well. Good luck in your search for one.

I've been reading your posts about finding the knife strong evidence against the couple. I understand, though don't share, your assertion that Raffaele would only make up that story if he was guilty. The main thing for me that goes against the knife is how it could possibly come to be involved in the murder in the first place. So, I'm curious which version you ascribe to:

A. That Amanda borrowed the knife from Raffaele for protection, despite already owning mace and having a plethora of knives to choose from at the cottage.

B. That Amanda grabbed the knife spontaneously before going to hang out with Raf at her place, maybe anticipating a fight with Meredith would happen.

C. Some other reason.

 

[treehorn]

...If that turns out to be the case then I think the "Rudy was an informant with police protection" theory gets a huge boost...

"Theory"?!

You mean, Rank Supposition.

And, yes, it would be a "HUGE boost" because, at present, there isn't a SHRED of evidence to support it.

What happened to "evidence-based argument", Kevin?

 

[truethat]

This is exactly why everyone keeps citing other instances of people confessing to crimes they were never involved in and knew anything about.

But just to clarify your other points, Amanda's story only changed during this interrogation, so to say she changed her story again and again is false and she has also stated that she wasn't allowed any breaks. One of the major things that stinks to me about Amanda's statement of being at that cottage that night is that the details provided by her don't exceed what the police were trying to get out of her. The police were certain she went out that night to meet Patrick based on her text. So they got her to admit to that. But beyond that basic notion there is nothing that Amanda added to the details of that night that anyone else in her seat couldn't have said. The lack of any other information from her as a witness other than what the police already suspected is, well, suspect.

This is a very draining post to reply to. I am talking about her interrogation. I have no clue why a girl in this day and age, we're not talking about older cases, we're not talking about someone who has no clue about the world. Her mother is on her way and they are talking about a murder.

If she as confused about the interrogation she should have stopped. As I said she's either incredibly stupid or she knows something more than she's letting on. I don't think she's necessarily guilty of killing the woman but to me accusing a man of murdering her room mate is beyond the pale. If you think about it Karma is an efficient wench. If the Bar manager didn't have a rock solid alibi he could be sitting right where she is.

It really concerns me that her story changed so much during interrogation. Of course it is going to change afterward, all criminal stories change afterward.

 

[capealadin]

Truethat. Amanda wasn't interrogated for 15 hours. These stories came out in about 2-3 hours. She blamed Patrick when she found out Raffaele threw her under the bus, telling the police that " Amanda had told me to say a load of c**p.". That's for starters.

 

[truethat]

hm I always heard it was 15. So she goes in for a few hours and points the finger at Patrick. What a messed up thing to do.

What is this throwing Raffaele under a bus thing. I'm new to this.

 

[Kestrel]

This is a very draining post to reply to. I am talking about her interrogation. I have no clue why a girl in this day and age, we're not talking about older cases, we're not talking about someone who has no clue about the world. Her mother is on her way and they are talking about a murder.

If she as confused about the interrogation she should have stopped. As I said she's either incredibly stupid or she knows something more than she's letting on. I don't think she's necessarily guilty of killing the woman but to me accusing a man of murdering her room mate is beyond the pale. If you think about it Karma is an efficient wench. If the Bar manager didn't have a rock solid alibi he could be sitting right where she is.

It really concerns me that her story changed so much during interrogation. Of course it is going to change afterward, all criminal stories change afterward.

If you haven't seen Frontline: The Confessions, watching the program will help you understand how interrogations can generate false confessions and false accusations.

 

[Malkmus]

This is a very draining post to reply to. I am talking about her interrogation. I have no clue why a girl in this day and age, we're not talking about older cases, we're not talking about someone who has no clue about the world. Her mother is on her way and they are talking about a murder.

If she as confused about the interrogation she should have stopped. As I said she's either incredibly stupid or she knows something more than she's letting on. I don't think she's necessarily guilty of killing the woman but to me accusing a man of murdering her room mate is beyond the pale. If you think about it Karma is an efficient wench. If the Bar manager didn't have a rock solid alibi he could be sitting right where she is.

It really concerns me that her story changed so much during interrogation. Of course it is going to change afterward, all criminal stories change afterward.

I'm sorry my post is so draining to reply to.

Her story changed one time, during the night of the 5th, and the next morning she wrote that she was unsure of what she had told the police. Other than that her story remained the same. I maintain that it is false to state her story changed again and again, unless you mean simply that she started and ended with one story that changed once on November 5th. Reading her testimony and her statements from that night I find her version of that interrogation very plausible: that she simply corroborated a sequence of events that the police already had in mind. As of yet, I have not heard the police's version of what led Amanda to agree that she had met up with Patrick that night.

 

[platonov]

I'm sorry my post is so draining to reply to.

Her story changed one time, during the night of the 5th, and the next morning she wrote that she was unsure of what she had told the police. Other than that her story remained the same. I maintain that it is false to state her story changed again and again, unless you mean simply that she started and ended with one story that changed once on November 5th. Reading her testimony and her statements from that night I find her version of that interrogation very plausible: that she simply corroborated a sequence of events that the police already had in mind. As of yet, I have not heard the police's version of what led Amanda to agree that she had met up with Patrick that night.

False - it changed from the original version(s) TO that of the night of the 5/6th TO that of the 'gift' next day TO that of the bugged conversation on the 10th TO the much confusion later over all the changes [both on Dec 17 & and again in open court]
And I may have missed some nuances.


You don't have her statements from that night or do you ?

Well, if I am mistaken please post them - they are the subject of much debate here and you have been holding out all this time ?