Continuation - Discussion of the Amanda Knox case

[Sherlock Holmes]

Aren't you are all being a bit hard on CW ?
He may* have worked out how the appeal is likely to go and is getting his retaliation in early.

Thats exactly what I was thinking when I read his reply, and he's stated that before as well. I don't blame him either, when the examination comes back, there are 4 possible results and only one favors Amanda and RS and even if that result is returned, and it not likely, it still may not be enough to free them.

 

[samba]

How can that be the case when neither you nor anyone else has anything remotely resembling a coherent theory of the crime that fits with the facts as we now know them?

We're down to a couple of confused statements made under duress, and DNA results from an uncertified lab that claims to have never once had a contamination incident despite not having anything like proper controls in place, and which refuses to show its work to the defence. That's not a case that should secure a conviction in any decent court.

You know that you're not going to get that coherent theory, because there isn't one. Rudy Guede killed MK by himself. The physical evidence is clear...and the ever important motive was robbery (unfortunately gone wrong).

Why hasn't anyone from the pro-guilt side commented on Michael Krom's opinion that LJ posted. The truth hurts doesn't it? As Krom said "Raffaeles’s position is even more absurd. Just a fragment of DNA on the hook ‘gets’ him. Here we are in my expertise field. And I say: in the case of the hook suspicions of contamination are enormous."

As you said Kevin, "We're down to a couple of confused statements made under duress". It seems like most of the posts these days are mostly about what AK & RS said. That's all the pro-guilt side can hang on to. As you've pointed out many times, there isn't any coherent theory that involves AK & RS...regardless of what they've said.

 

[nopoirot]

I would be interested to know what support can be found, apart from a priori reasoning, for the notion that Raffaele's statements to the police were not voluntary. He was pursuing a higher education in a field requiring a high degee of analytical skill, so it can't reasonably be assumed that he was always "high." It would hardly seem likely that he befuddled himself with drugs before presenting himself for a third day of interrogation. He claims drug-induced impairment of memory for the evening of the murder, but his memories of contacts with the police seem clear enough. Actually, he has been quite verbose about all this. In his diary, he complains of "psychological torture" in the form of being cuffed, disrobed, and deprived of his shoes. He does not claim that he was yelled at, or even spoken to rudely. He does not claim, or even intimate, the police told him they "had the goods" on Amanda. During the trial, he rose to claim that he had not been permitted to call a lawyer, or even his father. No more. And in his diary, Raffaele blames his predicament squarely on his stupidity for telling the police that Amanda had gone to Le Chic on the evening of 11-1, and that she had persuaded him to lie to the police.

 

[Kevin_Lowe]

Thats exactly what I was thinking when I read his reply, and he's stated that before as well. I don't blame him either, when the examination comes back, there are 4 possible results and only one favors Amanda and RS and even if that result is returned, and it not likely, it still may not be enough to free them.

I can forgive CW's cynicism, based on what happened in the first trial. The prosecution leaked like a sieve and got away with murder in court, while Massei whitewashed police incompetence, selectively ignored vital pieces of expert testimony and made up the claimed science as he went along. It was not a display calculated to give any rational person belief in the good faith or competence of the Perugia legal system.

However I'm prepared to give Hellmann a blank slate to begin with, and so far his decisions have seemed cautiously rational. I may end up thinking he's as much of a fool and a stooge as Massei, but I absolutely will not form any such judgment without proper evidence. Based on the evidence so far I have no criticism of him.

In fact, if he thinks that a review just of Curatolo and the DNA results would be enough to allow him to dismiss the case if the results favoured the defence, I would say that his methods are admirably precise and rational. A good thinker seeks evidence that will falsify their hypothesis first, and discards a falsified hypothesis immediately.

Based on the fact that he has reserved the possibility of reviewing other evidence, while first reviewing a set of evidence that could be enough to end the case on the spot, I would go so far as to say that I've got a good feeling about Hellmann.

Here's my million dollar challenge attempt: I think it's nigh certain that Curatolo's testimony will go down like a sodium submarine. I think it's nigh certain that any competent, independent and rational review will have Stefanoni's DNA results on the bra clasp and knife laughed out of court. I think it's unlikely to be chance that Hellmann homed in on these points of evidence out of all the available data points to examine, therefore I think it's likely he is of the view that those three data points together are potentially decisive. So I think odds are well above 50% that Amanda and Raffaele go free based just on these issues, and rest of the case remains unexamined unless there is the political will for a full inquiry, as there should be.

 

[Mary_H]

I would be interested to know what support can be found, apart from a priori reasoning, for the notion that Raffaele's statements to the police were not voluntary. He was pursuing a higher education in a field requiring a high degee of analytical skill, so it can't reasonably be assumed that he was always "high." It would hardly seem likely that he befuddled himself with drugs before presenting himself for a third day of interrogation. He claims drug-induced impairment of memory for the evening of the murder, but his memories of contacts with the police seem clear enough. Actually, he has been quite verbose about all this. In his diary, he complains of "psychological torture" in the form of being cuffed, disrobed, and deprived of his shoes. He does not claim that he was yelled at, or even spoken to rudely. He does not claim, or even intimate, the police told him they "had the goods" on Amanda. During the trial, he rose to claim that he had not been permitted to call a lawyer, or even his father. No more. And in his diary, Raffaele blames his predicament squarely on his stupidity for telling the police that Amanda had gone to Le Chic on the evening of 11-1, and that she had persuaded him to lie to the police.

Whether Raffaele's statements to the police were voluntary or involuntary is irrelevant until we know exactly what he said. All we have is one report, which was given to the newspapers by the police, along with what Raffaele wrote in his diary. In his diary, he doesn't report everything he said during the interrogation; he just gives a general idea. We need a recording or transcript of Raffaele's interrogation in order to discuss it with strong validity.

It is possible that Raffaele does not give a complete account of his interrogation in his diary because he was aware of the Italian laws against calunnia, even if only at a subconscious level. On the other hand, it is possible there was not much to tell. Maybe the police went to Amanda and said, "Raffaele is not holding up your alibi," and then said the same thing to the press. Meanwhile, to Raffaele's way of thinking, he may have believed he never did any such thing, at least not explicitly or with great confidence.

 

[Mary_H]

Actually, Raf tells his diary that he first told the police that Amanda had been with him all night, then shot himself in the foot by saying that she had gone to Le Chic, then settled into the version, that, gee, try as he can, he just can't be sure. You have to read the several relevant passages together, and distinguish between what Raf claims to remember (or not remember) at the time of the writing, and what he remembers having told the police. The supposition that he did no more than admit that he can't be 100% certain that Amanda was with him all night is wishful thinking / damage control. You can not here rely on second and third hand accounts (except mine, of course) for the contents of the diary. I would also suggest that because something was leaked to the press is not conclusive proof of its falsity. These indicate that Raf at one point said that Amanda had gone to Le Chic that night. As I suggested a couple of days ago, this accounts for Amanda coming unglued.

You could also read the several relevant passages together and find these statements:

11/7
(I have strong doubts regarding the fact that she was absent)

Another thing of which I can be sure is that Amanda slept with me that night

11/12
reconstructing I am realizing that Amanda was actually very likely with me all night, never leaving

As soon as I'm out I want to make my biggest apologies cordially to the parents of Amanda, who are totally destroyed and devastated. I'm sorriest for all that

11/18
then the day after Amanda repeated to me that if she had not been with me at this time she would be dead. Thinking and reconstructing, it seems to me that she always remained with me

I am convinced that she could not have killed Meredith and then return home

There is a long tradition in this debate of the colpevolisti claiming that Amanda knew she was wrong about naming Patrick and yet she never told the police about it, so they kept Patrick in prison. To which the innocentisti reply that Amanda showed in her statement to police on November 6th, and in the taped conversation with her mother on November 8th, that she was well aware she was mistaken in naming Patrick. Amanda talked about this later in her court testimony, saying that she had assumed the information the police had about her serious doubts would be enough to make them look twice at her accusation.

The situation surrounding Raffaele's "non-support" of Amanda's alibi is very similar. First of all, we don't know whether he explicitly denied her alibi in the first place. Second, it appears from what he wrote in his diary, that he did exactly what Amanda did -- gave the original alibi, then, under duress, gave the police version of the alibi, then, in front of the judge, reverted to the original version of the alibi.

"Today the court questioned me and said that I gave three different statements, but the only difference that I find is that I said that Amanda brought me to say crap in the second version, and that was to go out at the bar where she worked, Le Chic."

As in Amanda's case, the differences between the two stories should have raised serious questions in the minds of the police and prosecutor -- not allowed them to fix on the version they preferred.

Third, much of Raffaele's diary is written in letter form to his father. There is no doubt he intended his father to share it with Raffaele's defense lawyers, so they could have the most complete picture of events from Raffaele's point of view. In other words, in Raffaele's mind, as he writes, he is letting people know he regrets doubting Amanda, just as Amanda let people know she regretted naming Patrick.

Everyone has been arguing that Raffaele to this day has never supplied Amanda with an alibi. Maybe the truth to him is that he never stopped supplying her with one.

 

[Mary_H]

The fat cavolata

From Raffaele's diary:

11/9
Today the court questioned me and said that I gave three different statements, but the only difference that I find is that

I said that Amanda brought me to say crap in the second version, and that was to go out at the bar where she worked, Le Chic.

But I do not remember exactly whether she went out or less to go to the pub and as a consequence I do not remember how long she was absent. What is all my difficulty? I do not remember this, for them, important detail, therefore I don't break and we're investigating her. I tried to help in the investigation trying to remember and now I've brought myself to this place, better I did nothing and limit myself to say that I remained at my house and I would be spared so much unrest. We speak of something other that is better ...

11/12
The facts are taking their course and slowly I am realizing that according to the fact which you, dad, that night sent me a message of 'goodnight' and also for the fact that the first statement made by me saying that Amanda was all the night with me,

I must say that 90% I said the fat cavolata in my second statement. And that is:
1 that Amanda brought me to say something stupid and I have repeated that over and over again in the court of the squadra mobile;

2 reconstructing I am realizing that Amanda was actually very likely with me all night, never leaving. And I certainly wouldn't mind to help in the investigation and put freely in all the troubles. Indeed, for me it would be fabulous if Amanda had done nothing, as it becomes impossible to find whatever trace on my shoes and my knife and this story will have a happy ending for me and for you ...

Raffaele is recounting what he said in his second statement to the police, he is not recounting what Amanda actually told him to say. He is saying that he told the police that Amanda had brought him to say crap. He is not saying Amanda brought him to say crap.

The only two versions of Amanda and Raffaele's alibis:

1. Original versions
2. Police-influenced versions
1. Original versions

 

[Malkmus]

From Raffaele's diary:




Raffaele is recounting what he said in his second statement to the police, he is not recounting what Amanda actually told him to say. He is saying that he told the police that Amanda had brought him to say crap. He is not saying Amanda brought him to say crap.

The only two versions of Amanda and Raffaele's alibis:

1. Original versions
2. Police-influenced versions
1. Original versions

This point is made even more clear in the newer translation of his diary from PMF:

1 that fact that Amanda persuaded me to say something is not true and I have said so repeatedly to the judge and to the Squadra Mobile;

 

[NewtonTrino]

I originally went off half cocked thinking Amanda was totally innocent. Over time I was convinced that it is possible for her to be involved.

However, I have still not heard a coherent account of the murder involving the three of them that makes sense to me. To me the simplest explanation is that the Rudy killed her, for reasons unknown, and that Amanda is simply a young girl who was smoking weed with her boyfriend. It's fairly easy to get pressured into saying all kinds of ridiculous things by the police. Without a video of her interrogations I don't think it should be admissible (video would be fine because context would be obvious).

So can anyone paint a picture of how they worked together in this murder? I don't buy some naive sex game theory as there is no evidence for it that I've seen. In fact I don't think I've heard a coherent version of what happened that made sense to me.

Now I'm not saying that she's innocent. I'm just saying that in my mind they haven't proven her guilt. Sometimes there are crimes that you will never know the truth. This could be one of them.

 

[Mary_H]

This point is made even more clear in the newer translation of his diary from PMF:

Thank you for the update, Malkmus.

I was also struck by something Raffaele wrote to TG Norba in February of 2008:

"By now I am resigned and it's useless for me to get angry or to try to shout my innocence since neither the judges nor the investigators nor others listen to me."

 

[katy_did]

This point is made even more clear in the newer translation of his diary from PMF:

Have to say, though, that I still disagree with the use of the word 'persuade', there. He only says that she 'caused' him (or 'influenced', etc) to talk rubbish, he never says explicitly that she told him to lie, which is what 'persuade' makes it sound like. And in his actual police statement it's obvious that he isn't saying she told him to lie, but that he believed what she was telling him ('she convinced me of her version of the facts and I didn't think of the inconsistencies').

(I know this has been discussed a bit before, though )

 

[Malkmus]

Thank you for the update, Malkmus.

I was also struck by something Raffaele wrote to TG Norba in February of 2008:

"By now I am resigned and it's useless for me to get angry or to try to shout my innocence since neither the judges nor the investigators nor others listen to me."

Reminds me a bit of this Amanda quote:

when I told them that I wasn't sure, and that I didn't want to sign their
declaration, and that I thought it was all a big mistake, they didn't want
to listen. When I told them that I wasn't sure, they said that I would
remember everything later

 

[Mary_H]

Have to say, though, that I still disagree with the use of the word 'persuade', there. He only says that she 'caused' him (or 'influenced', etc) to talk rubbish, he never says explicitly that she told him to lie, which is what 'persuade' makes it sound like. And in his actual police statement it's obvious that he isn't saying she told him to lie, but that he believed what she was telling him (she convinced me of her version of the facts and I didn't think of the inconsistencies, etc).

He might have just expressed to the police during his interrogation that he now realized he had mistakenly believed Amanda.

 

[Mary_H]

Reminds me a bit of this Amanda quote:

when I told them that I wasn't sure, and that I didn't want to sign their declaration, and that I thought it was all a big mistake, they didn't want to listen. When I told them that I wasn't sure, they said that I would remember everything later

Disgusting.

 

[nopoirot]

To repeat myself (see my 12-20 post, 21999), Raffaele gave the police three different versions on this point. The second (and fatal) version was that Amanda had parted from him to go to Le Chic. This is confirmed by Amanda herself in her trial testimony when she says a policewoman told her, during her interrogation, that Raffaele had stated that she, Amanda, had left the house that evening (Murder in Perugia, transcript of 7th audio clip.)

 

[nopoirot]

Excuse me. Perugia Murder File.

 

[Chris C]

To repeat myself (see my 12-20 post, 21999), Raffaele gave the police three different versions on this point. The second (and fatal) version was that Amanda had parted from him to go to Le Chic. This is confirmed by Amanda herself in her trial testimony when she says a policewoman told her, during her interrogation, that Raffaele had stated that she, Amanda, had left the house that evening (Murder in Perugia, transcript of 7th audio clip.)

So your saying the police lied to her? So the police in fact do lie. Yet for some odd reason, when the police tell her this, she is still not an OFFICIAL SUSPECT. One of the key components to a false confession is to tell a person you got proof they did something. So basicly this whole Knox/Sollecito confessions are the police lying to the suspects and in return the suspects tell them something that DIDN'T happen. When you confront people with lies, the only answer to support your lie is more lies. Matter of fact of all the things that any of them said. We do know for sure that Knox didn't go to Le Chic and Patrick didn't kill Meredith. Are not those the 2 things the prosecution knows for sure didn't happen. Yet for some reason those 2 things that were said proves guilt in alot of peoples eyes.

 

[colonelhall]

RWVBWL:
"That is an interesting way to trip up a person being questioned, especially one stoned."

I agree. Would you term this "waterboarding"?

How could the police ensure fair play here? Perhaps a drug test. If the perp fails, then perhaps a few hours to get his head clear.

Personally, I would take it as a given that any criminal is likely to lie and that "tripping him up" is a good thing.

On the other hand, some posters here have recently argued that Rafael was not inclined to smoke much. On joint, three joints ..... nothing here to really befuddle the mind.

It appears that, according to some, the only thing that has caused uncertainty is the dastardly police and that any lie that he has told is down to them. He is absolutely blameless.

Many of those who are convinced of the guilt of this pair, are persuaded by the inconsistency of their own statements, as much as by the ample forensic evidence. Arguments to the contrary, as have been appearing lately, seem to be very lame, if not desperate, and serve only to add weight to the guity verdict.

 

[Mary_H]

Greetings all. I wonder if sufficient attention has been devoted to Raffaele's betrayal of Amanda. As I follow the timelines, Raffaele and Amanda attend classes on the morning of Nov. 5. That evening, they dine together, and present themselves at the police station somewhere around 10:15. While Raffaele is being questioned, Amanda whiles away the time with exercises. Around 10:30 or so (I don't know that the exact time is here important), Raffaele begins to change his testimony. There is much dispute about the nature of this change. Raffaele's diary is hardly a model of lucidity, but in his entry of Nov. 12 he says ". . . in the first statement I made I said that Amanda had stayed with me all night long . . . (trans. Clander.) This leaves little room for doubt that the "big cabbage" came in the second version. One of the cabbage leafs is the claim that Amanda had induced him to "talk crap," another that Amanda had parted from him that evening to go to Le Chic. Some strained attempts have been made to propose that the "big cabbage" did not catch Amanda from the blind side, but I think them unpersuasive. What prompted Raffaele to throw it? On what theory would he substitute a lie for the truth, or one lie for another? What persuasive evidence militates against the commonsensical inference that, having had a couple of days to study on the dangers of perjury, he decided to "come clean"? It did not take him long to realize, of course, that he had dropped himself into a pot of boiling water, but that is beside the point. Amanda, poleaxed with news of Raffaele's betrayal, was thrown into a state of panic and shock. Like Thurber's squirrel, she darted this way, that, "lost her head" and ran right into the tire. Another cuff on the head might well have induced her to confess to the assassination of Archduke Ferdinand. It has been plausibly argued, here and elsewhere, that her first "confession" came as early as 1:45. She made herself "roadkill" with that statement, and from it all else flowed. It may not be admissible, in a court of law, but Amanda could hardly have known that. It did not take her long to realize that, in addition to making a most imprudent accusation against Lumumba, she had implicated herself in one of the most lurid crimes of recent memory. I don't know that we need a theory of coercion to account for her subsequent statements. They are but attempts to mitigate the admission that she had been untruthful twice over. In the vernacular, she was "crawfishing." And now she gives to understand that her troubled psyche is throwing up images that may or may not be grounded in reality--you know, like in one of those Jason Bourne movies. Were I the judge, I would be disinclined to spring the door of her cage unless she comes forward with a reasonably plausible account of the facts.

I am not sure you can say that Raffaele gave three different versions. The version given during the interrogation may be confused, but it should count only as one version to my way of thinking.

As for Amanda coming forward with a reasonably plausible account of the facts, she has done that.

(To respond to a post, just click on "Quote.")

 

[Mary_H]

RWVBWL:
"That is an interesting way to trip up a person being questioned, especially one stoned."

I agree. Would you term this "waterboarding"?

How could the police ensure fair play here? Perhaps a drug test. If the perp fails, then perhaps a few hours to get his head clear.

Personally, I would take it as a given that any criminal is likely to lie and that "tripping him up" is a good thing.

On the other hand, some posters here have recently argued that Rafael was not inclined to smoke much. On joint, three joints ..... nothing here to really befuddle the mind.

It appears that, according to some, the only thing that has caused uncertainty is the dastardly police and that any lie that he has told is down to them. He is absolutely blameless.

Many of those who are convinced of the guilt of this pair, are persuaded by the inconsistency of their own statements, as much as by the ample forensic evidence. Arguments to the contrary, as have been appearing lately, seem to be very lame, if not desperate, and serve only to add weight to the guity verdict.

That has always been your opinion, colonelhall. Nothing "lately" about it.

You are not persuaded by the "inconsistency of their statements" because their statements are not inconsistent; at least you have never documented anything to that effect. You are not persuaded by the "ample forensic evidence" because it amounts to no more than the knife and the bra clasp, which is why the judge chose those two items to be reviewed and/or retested independently. All the "rest of it" amounts to nothing.

The only thing you seem to be persuaded by are biased arguments with no sound intellect behind them. "Personally, I would take it as a given that any criminal is likely to lie..." Aren't you jumping the gun a bit on this reasoning?

"...the only thing that has caused uncertainty is the dastardly police and that any lie that he has told is down to them. He is absolutely blameless."

Yes, this is very true, and the same goes for Amanda.