Continuation - Discussion of the Amanda Knox case

[christianahannah]

I think it is unfortunate that Amanda is expected to say anything. It implies she did something to get herself into this, and now there is something she should do, or should have done, to get herself out of it.

No Mary, it is not expected, it is just done. It doesn't imply guilt, or fault. If I named someone who I did not know was there, even if my naming them was forced, it does not hurt me to apologize for the pain inflicted on that person.

No one would be looking to Amanda to apologize to Patrick or sympathize with the Kerchers if not for the police falsely arresting her, the prosecutor arbitrarily pursuing charges against her, and the judges wrongly convicting her. She is paying their debts.

I think it is right that Amanda apologized yesterday to Patrick and sympathized with the Kerchers about Meredith's death. It shows she did care about those things and humanizes her.

To say that it is helpful for her to make this statement now, or preferably earlier, is basically to say that Amanda has finally accepted her place. Her spontaneous joy and innocence have been beaten out of her, and she is now behaving in the way she should have been behaving all along. What a relief.

No Mary, I don't think that. I think Amanda made a wise decision in speaking yesterday and addressing the criticisms which have been directed towards her.

 

[RoseMontague]

The test used for blood was substantially more sensitive than the test for DNA. I'm sure Halides1 can fill you in on the technical details but my understanding was that this is chiefly because most (red) blood cells do not contain DNA, so that it is easier to detect blood than to detect the DNA in blood. As I said, I will defer to Halides1 if this understanding of the science involved is incorrect.

From this we can conclude that whatever it was Stefanoni was testing, it was not blood nor was it some mixture of blood and other tissue, because such a mixture would have tested positive for blood.

We can also conclude that the material tested had not survived a cleaning with bleach as some have theorised, as picograms of material are simply not going to survive immersion in a bleach solution.

The explanation that seems most likely to me is that the police claim to have smelled bleach in Sollecito's apartment was an ill-considered verbal, that Steafanoni was testing random grot on the blade which had nothing to do with the murder, and that the positive result for Amanda's DNA was a result (inadvertent or deliberate) of cross-contamination with something else in the lab that day that held Amanda's DNA.

I agree. There was none of Meredith's DNA on the knife.

 

[RoseMontague]

No Mary, I don't think that. I think Amanda made a wise decision in speaking yesterday and addressing the criticisms which have been directed towards her.

I think her decision yesterday was the correct one. The question regarding if it would have been better for her to do it earlier is debatable. Personally, I don't think it would have harmed her position but she may have been advised on this by her lawyers.

 

[Kaosium]

I think it helps to see the human side of her. But again, where was this during the trial?? THIS IS EXACTLY THE BEHAVIOR, WORDS, AND SADNESS THAT MOST PEOPLE EXPECT OF A NORMAL PERSON. Not what we saw in trial, not what we have seen up until now.

I wonder if in a society where a police chief could tell a news crew point blank something to the effect of 'we can tell a guilty person just by their behavior we don't need evidence,' if it would become a cultural norm for people under suspicion to act in the manner you described.

Someone unfamiliar with that culture might not realize the importance of this, especially if they come from a hippy-dippy kind of environment.

 

[Kaosium]

No Mary, it is not expected, it is just done. It doesn't imply guilt, or fault. If I named someone who I did not know was there, even if my naming them was forced, it does not hurt me to apologize for the pain inflicted on that person.

I think it is right that Amanda apologized yesterday to Patrick and sympathized with the Kerchers about Meredith's death. It shows she did care about those things and humanizes her.

No Mary, I don't think that. I think Amanda made a wise decision in speaking yesterday and addressing the criticisms which have been directed towards her.

I understand what you mean, and that is probably why her lawyers let her 'take responsibility' for it during the slander trial. What irritates me is not your points which I find valid, but that it will seem to absolve the Perugian police of their responsibility in that debacle.

 

[christianahannah]

I wonder if in a society where a police chief could tell a news crew point blank something to the effect of 'we can tell a guilty person just by their behavior we don't need evidence,' if it would become a cultural norm for people under suspicion to act in the manner you described.

Someone unfamiliar with that culture might not realize the importance of this, especially if they come from a hippy-dippy kind of environment.

I think unfamiliarity with the culture on both sides has been a negative to this case. The translation of language, in itself, can add or take away the meaning intended by the person speaking, not to mention knowledge of customs, laws and procedures.

 

[Kaosium]

I believe you said "not a cop". You know that if they work for the cops there is a common employer, right? Is all they do all day is sit around waiting for some English speaking person to get arrested so they can actually do something?

This is a very good point, what use would the police station have for a genuine interpreter in Perugia the rest of the time? Did she come from Rome maybe?

 

[christianahannah]

I understand what you mean, and that is probably why her lawyers let her 'take responsibility' for it during the slander trial. What irritates me is not your points which I find valid, but that it will seem to absolve the Perugian police of their responsibility in that debacle.

I hope the truth will be decided in the slander trial, whatever that is, but I think it was good for it to have been postponed while the appeal is ongoing. The evidence presented during the appeal and its outcome may have an effect on the slander trial.

If Amanda was coerced into blaming Patrick I don't think her apologizing to him yesterday would absolve the police.

 

[JREF2010]

I think her decision yesterday was the correct one. The question regarding if it would have been better for her to do it earlier is debatable. Personally, I don't think it would have harmed her position but she may have been advised on this by her lawyers.

I would have to agree her lawyers advised , yesterday and previously.

One example of this, imo..

If I recall the prosecution asked Amanda to point to the person who cuffed her, it was another entrapment attempt the defense probably instructed Amanda not to react to.

Mignini could have easily filed another charge against Amanda for pointing at one of the police women for the "head cuffing", of course with the police women denying everything bad.

Then there could there be another slander type charge? Would it be abnormal for Mignini to press charges for naming someone without proof?

How would Amanda prove it was that specific police women? Of course she can't.

 

[platonov]

Sincerity - If you can fake that .......

No Mary, it is not expected, it is just done. It doesn't imply guilt, or fault. If I named someone who I did not know was there, even if my naming them was forced, it does not hurt me to apologize for the pain inflicted on that person.


I think it is right that Amanda apologized yesterday to Patrick and sympathized with the Kerchers about Meredith's death. It shows she did care about those things and humanizes her.

No Mary, I don't think that. I think Amanda made a wise decision in speaking yesterday and addressing the criticisms which have been directed towards her.

That's what its designed to do presumably - some would say its a little late for that ?

It appears to have worked for you, if I understand you correctly - apologies if I have misread you.
Whether it works on the members of the jury remains to be seen. If AK's 'sincerity' was a given she wouldn't have spent the last 3 years in prison.

And it also falls foul of the adage about 'never opening with your best material'.

 

[Kaosium]

I hope the truth will be decided in the slander trial, whatever that is, but I think it was good for it to have been postponed while the appeal is ongoing. The evidence presented during the appeal and its outcome may have an effect on the slander trial.

Indeed, much like it did during her original trial. I imagine they can't/didn't appeal that, right?

If Amanda was coerced into blaming Patrick I don't think her apologizing to him yesterday would absolve the police.

Perhaps not, but in the public view it might take the eye off the ones who bear responsibility for the action in my opinion. To those who truly don't understand the concept of coercion it inculpates Amanda entirely.

 

[platonov]

I would have to agree her lawyers advised , yesterday and previously.

One example of this, imo..

If I recall the prosecution asked Amanda to point to the person who cuffed her, it was another entrapment attempt the defense probably instructed Amanda not to react to.
Mignini could have easily filed another charge against Amanda for pointing at one of the police women for the "head cuffing", of course with the police women denying everything bad.

Then there could there be another slander type charge? Would it be abnormal for Mignini to press charges for naming someone without proof?

How would Amanda prove it was that specific police women? Of course she can't.

Being asked in open court to back up you claims about an important part of the case is not normally described as 'entrapment'
- unless you have a different definition of the word.

Have you any evidence on what the defence advised her on this - I don't remember them bringing a case on AK's behalf for this 'assault' on the night of the 5/6th.
Did the defence even ask her directly about it while she was on the stand ?
They seemed to want to go with confusion etc as opposed to 'waterboarding' or 'torture' or avoid the whole issue.

 

[katy_did]

If I recall the prosecution asked Amanda to point to the person who cuffed her, it was another entrapment attempt the defense probably instructed Amanda not to react to.

Mignini could have easily filed another charge against Amanda for pointing at one of the police women for the "head cuffing", of course with the police women denying everything bad.

Then there could there be another slander type charge? Would it be abnormal for Mignini to press charges for naming someone without proof?

How would Amanda prove it was that specific police women? Of course she can't.

I think that one of the usual conditions of the slander charge is that a specific named person has to be slandered. So it might well be that Amanda was advised not to name anyone specifically, since this would open her up to further charges. Of course, Mignini got around this by saying she'd slandered the entire police force...

 

[christianahannah]

That's what its designed to do presumably - some would say its a little late for that ?

It probably depends on which side one is on but for Amanda I think it was positive.

It appears to have worked for you, if I understand you correctly - apologies if I have misread you.
Whether it worked on the members of the jury remains to be seen. If AK's 'sincerity' was a given she wouldn't have spent the last 3 years in prison.

I think Amanda did yesterday what needed to have been done, perhaps she could have done so earlier, but she did do it and she could have easily not done so. I think the jurors will take everything they hear and see into consideration during the appeal. I do hope it is not a question of 'sincerity' which has kept Amanda in jail for 3 years.

And it also falls foul of the adage about 'never opening with your best material'.

I don't know the strategy for Amanda's defense but who is to say this is their best material? Perhaps this is something Amanda wanted to do and felt she had to do.

 

[katy_did]

Perhaps not, but in the public view it might take the eye off the ones who bear responsibility for the action in my opinion. To those who truly don't understand the concept of coercion it inculpates Amanda entirely.

Yes, I agree. The question of whether Amanda should apologize to Patrick hinges on whether we hold the makers of coerced confessions responsible for those confessions, IMO. The demand that she should have apologized bothers me because it suggests that she (and by implication, anyone else who makes a coerced confession which implicates another person) is at least partly responsible for those coerced statements. To me, that seems a dangerous road to go down. And as you say, it also tends take the focus from any manipulative and dishonest police tactics which led to the confession in the first place.

 

[Kevin_Lowe]

Even if they haven't got Rudy's name, they should know that the palm print doesn't match any of the known suspects by mid day on the 6'th.

Hmm... it's not a knock-down case yet, but it raises my eyebrows that they were sticking with the Knox+Sollecito+Lumumba theory even after they had evidence in hand that someone other than those three had been present in the murder room with Meredith's blood on their hands. That doesn't seem consistent with a competent investigation or a competent attempt to frame someone. It looks like rank incompetence to me as of the 6th.

The real question is what day they learned that print matched that of a local crim with previous for second-storey work and carrying knives.

Given the length of time they held Lumumba, ignoring for a moment the length of time they kept his business closed (pro-guilt commenters never seem keen to touch that angle, possibly because it's impossible to reconcile with good faith), it stretches credulity that they did not get confirmation that the print was Rudy's in that time. That too would not be consistent with competence or good faith.

 

[Solange305]

No problem you think. How do you flush this toilet?
[qimg]http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/picture.php?albumid=597&pictureid=4095[/qimg]


I dont know, is it different than ours? Even if it was, wouldnt she know how to do it living there?


Again, reading from the Amanda's email:

i then went
into the bathroom where i had dried my hair and looked really quickley
into the toilet. in my panic i thought i hadnt seen anything there,
which to me meant whoever was in my house had been there when i had
been there. as it turns out the police told me later that the toilet
was full and that the [feces] had just fallen to the bottom of the
toilet, so i didnt see it.​

Ok, so I was right, she specifically says that she DID dry her hair in that bathroom. How come you guys keep saying otherwise? It's pretty clear: i then went
into the bathroom where i had dried my hair and looked really quickley
into the toilet. However, I realize now the depth of the toilet would make it less noticeable unless you are really looking in there, so Im willing to grant you that perhaps she really just didn't see it. I would think she would have smelled it, but whatever.

The depth of the bowel makes anything in the bottom appear to disappear when viewed from the side
[qimg]http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/picture.php?albumid=597&pictureid=4096[/qimg]

No sliding is required.

.........................................

 

[platonov]

It probably depends on which side one is on but for Amanda I think it was positive.



I think Amanda did yesterday what needed to have been done, perhaps she could have done so earlier, but she did do it and she could have easily not done so. I think the jurors will take everything they hear and see into consideration during the appeal. I do hope it is not a question of 'sincerity' which has kept Amanda in jail for 3 years.


I don't know the strategy for Amanda's defense but who is to say this is their best material? Perhaps this is something Amanda wanted to do and felt she had to do.

Yes it partly/primarily is - she has been found to have lied repeatedly during the course of a murder investigation/trail. If she had been believed she wouldn't be in prison ??

I have no doubt - its just the reasoning behind it we differ on.
If she is more concerned, as some here seem to be, with her public persona or what the papers say than a 26 yr term I'd be surprised. Its possible but that's taking 'image' a little too far, no ?

 

[Withnail1969]

.........................................

If Amanda had been snorting good cocaine the previous night she would not have smelled anything as her nostrils would have been blocked with blood and congealed snot.

Alternatively she might just have had a cold, or the poo had done all the stinking it was going to do already.

Everything always looks bad for Amanda until you realise that literally anything she does is going to be wrong for some people.

 

[Solange305]

To say that it is helpful for her to make this statement now, or preferably earlier, is basically to say that Amanda has finally accepted her place. Her spontaneous joy and innocence have been beaten out of her, and she is now behaving in the way she should have been behaving all along. What a relief.

Mary, I know you sympathize alot with Amanda, I understand that. I cant tell by your comments, and I don't have a problem with it. But I don't understand how anyone can display "spontaneous joy" as you call it, after your so called friend is murdered and you are being accused of it. Its not a game. Even a 20 year old should understand that. Like I said, the seriousness of the murder and accusation that we saw from Amanda yesterday should have come 3 years ago. Someone else said, she could have just been an uncaring selfish young woman who didn't really care much for Meredith and was enjoying the attention, it is not proof of murder. But if that was the case, she didn't do herself any favors, that's for sure.