Continuation - Discussion of the Amanda Knox case

[RoseMontague]

Amanda wrote a second diary that was quite long, but her first was only 7 pages.

She does indicate in her testimony that she was always writing a diary and even after her diary was taken she was still writing.

 

[shuttlt]

I'm surprised that you're surprised. I'd be even more surprised if Charlie even having it, acknowledged that.

Even if there is nothing in that paper that could be twisted into something incriminating - and it sure looks like it, otherwise we would have that document long ago - still the first thing PMF nutjobs would do would be to send it to that loony statement analysis guy, who would promptly explain how one innocuous word really mean murder, and the other deceit.

So I don't see why on earth should Charlie make it easier for them to smear Amanda.

If Charlie is lying, then of course him saying he doesn't have it stops being odd. You do highlight a problem with the evidence base for our debate. Charlie and others with access to the family are one of the key sources for documents and photographs relating to the case, yet as you indicate, they may well be withholding documents that they believe could be used to support a pro-guilt argument. Bruce admits to doing this. For all we know their source withholds documents from them as well.

 

[platonov]

I wanted to add that the one quote we have from this seems to me to be more helpful than harmful to Amanda's case. I would love to see this document as well.

CP certainly didn't think so - he brought it up (and it was mentioned more than once) - as I tried to indicate to Katody Matrass here (and later) but there was little interest*

Nor was in written 'in the presence of the police' - it was freely written in prison. Unless you have information that AK or her lawyers never advised the court of.

* From KM's above post I now see why - information damaging to AK is to be hidden ? Unfortunately for this approach the court doesn't depend on CW for document release, but this candour makes sense of the nature of some of the arguments on this thread.

 

[shuttlt]

He's not looking for an opportunity to release them. Don't you think he knows they are completely innocent? People on the Internet may read Massei's crap and think it is very impressive and convincing, but this guy isn't that dumb. He looking for some way to avoid an outcome that will embarrass the system.

There was a time when I'm certain Massei was supposed to be looking for such a way out also.

 

[shuttlt]

* From KM's above post I now see why - information damaging to AK is to be hidden ? Unfortunately for this approach the court doesn't depend on CW for document release, but this candour makes sense of the nature of some of the arguments on this thread.

As I say, Bruce has quite explicitly given this as a reason for not sharing documents he was using as support for his arguments.

 

[christianahannah]

He's not looking for an opportunity to release them. Don't you think he knows they are completely innocent? People on the Internet may read Massei's crap and think it is very impressive and convincing, but this guy isn't that dumb. He looking for some way to avoid an outcome that will embarrass the system.

If you think I'm wrong, ask the Birmingham Six, or the West Memphis Three, or the Norfolk Four, or Barry Beach, or Hernandez and Cruz, or any of a zillion other people who have gotten caught up in one of these nightmare cases. It takes a lot of work to get them out, if you get them out.

Charlie I don't know if I agree with you about Hellmann. If that was true I don't think he would have chosen Carla Vecchiotti to test and/or review the evidence.

Carla Vecchiotti analyzed evidence in the Caffarella rape case which resulted in the release of the two Romanians. She is also doing work on the Misseri case but I am not sure in what capacity (for the defense, prosecution or the family of Sarah), I have not read much about the case lately.

I have not read of Stefano Conti, perhaps others might have some information concerning him.

 

[Fuji]

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.

What a ridiculous statement.

No, for decent, honorable people, when you confront them with lies, the only answer is to tell the truth!

I have personally undergone a police interrogation (combined with a polygraph reading) lasting two and a half hours in a felony investigation. I was told many of the same things which were allegedly said to AK & RS: we know you did it, stop lying and tell us the truth, we're going to send you to prison for 10 years, etc. These things were said over and over again to me, but my story never wavered, because it was the truth.

You shouldn't lie to the police when they are conducting a murder investigation. Say nothing if you prefer - that is your right - but do not lie. I really don't understand why this is apparently such a controversial position to hold.

 

[Fuji]

I'm guessing Hellmann will invite a thorough and exhaustive review of the bra fastener and the knife that will take months and consume the attention of the public and the media. Then on a hot Friday afternoon in July, he will declare that the knife is out, the bra fastener is unresolved, but the verdict stands because of all the other evidence, which they never got around to examining. Then the Supreme Court will take up the subject in a leisurely way, eventually concluding that the evidence is compelling, but not quite good enough to sustain the conviction. Amanda and Raffaele will go free after spending at least five years in prison.

It is my understanding that the Court of Cassation does not consider the vailidity of evidence, but rather is only concerned with whether or not correct judicial procedure was applied in the case.

From Wikipedia:

"The Court of Cassation cannot overrule the trial court's interpretation of the evidence; rather, it corrects a lower court's interpretation or application of the law... The essential roles of the Court of Cassation are to ensure that lower courts have correctly followed legal procedure and to harmonise the interpretation of laws by lower courts through its interpretation."

 

[Katody Matrass]

He's not looking for an opportunity to release them. Don't you think he knows they are completely innocent? People on the Internet may read Massei's crap and think it is very impressive and convincing, but this guy isn't that dumb. He looking for some way to avoid an outcome that will embarrass the system.

If you think I'm wrong, ask the Birmingham Six, or the West Memphis Three, or the Norfolk Four, or Barry Beach, or Hernandez and Cruz, or any of a zillion other people who have gotten caught up in one of these nightmare cases. It takes a lot of work to get them out, if you get them out.

Charlie, I think you're overly pessimistic. The rationale for the DNA review was that the first verdict didn't pass the beyond reasonable doubt criteria. But anything looked upon again in this case will only extend the doubt. Curatolo, other witnesses, different ToD from Rudy's verdict. Reviewing the DNA experts can only confirm there is doubt as to testing methods of the knife and collection and result interpretation of the bra clasp.

I agree that Amanda and Raffaele's wrongful conviction needs as much media and public outcry as possible, but this is happening, even in Italy, too. There is a change of tide.

 

[platonov]

As I say, Bruce has quite explicitly given this as a reason for not sharing documents he was using as support for his arguments.

I kinda' knew that - as I tried to point out to you here - It must have slipped my mind momentarily

 

[christianahannah]

She does indicate in her testimony that she was always writing a diary and even after her diary was taken she was still writing.

Candace Dempsey has a link to the seven-page diary of Amanda. It is on page five where Amanda states a nun came to visit her and told her to be patient that God knows everything and would help her to remember. After the nun left Amanda sat down to write and the memories came back to her of what had happened that night. She said she wrote everything she could remember and an explanation for her confusion.

 

[Chris_Halkides]

let's assume that they were totally baked

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.

colonelhall,

Assuming that you have my comments in mind, you have not summarized them correctly. I think that Raffaele was a fool to smoke even one joint and then let himself be interrogated. If he smoked three, then he was a bigger fool. However, the interrogation is another big factor in producing false statements. Moreover, even intelligent people can be influenced by police pressure, most notably Derek Tice, whose IQ was measured as 148-164. No one on the pro-innocence side, including Steve Moore, ever used the word "waterboarding" to describe the interrogations. This is, um, an exaggeration from some pro-guilt commenters.

Let's consider the following hypothetical. Suppose that two young people have smoked a good deal of cannabis. Then they are questioned, and solely from the effects of smoking, they give confused, even contradictory statements. Should that be taken as evidence of guilt? I don't think your position makes any sense, even on its own terms.

You have not had much to say about the "ample" forensic evidence, but I am all ears.

 

[Kestrel]

Let's consider the following hypothetical. Suppose that two young people have smoked a good deal of cannabis. Then they are questioned, and solely from the effects of smoking, they give confused, even contradictory statements. Should that be taken as evidence of guilt? I don't think your position makes any sense, even on its own terms.

Why do we assume that even sober and straight people can answer questions for hours on end without saying something that sounds confused or contradictory?

 

[Katody Matrass]

If Charlie is lying, then of course him saying he doesn't have it stops being odd. You do highlight a problem with the evidence base for our debate. Charlie and others with access to the family are one of the key sources for documents and photographs relating to the case, yet as you indicate, they may well be withholding documents that they believe could be used to support a pro-guilt argument. Bruce admits to doing this. For all we know their source withholds documents from them as well.

I never said Charlie is lying. the people involved and the families work for the freedom of the wrongfully convicted. They have no duty to provide you, or any guilters with fuel for their crackpot statement analysis or other smear.

Frankly, complaining that the defense withholds anything from the public disgusts me. All of the incriminating evidence, along with multiple lies were released to the media from the day one by ILE and prosecution. They withheld arbitrarily what they thought were not helpful for the conviction, though. Why don't you concentrate on what the prosecution withholds not only from the public, but from the defense?

 

[RoseMontague]

CP certainly didn't think so - he brought it up (and it was mentioned more than once) - as I tried to indicate to Katody Matrass here (and later) but there was little interest*

Nor was in written 'in the presence of the police' - it was freely written in prison. Unless you have information that AK or her lawyers never advised the court of.

I was referring to this quote in my comment regarding in the presence of police:

LG: I accept the reproof. He asked why she didn't tell the penitentiary police. May I object to this question? She wrote it in the memorandum of the 7th, on the following morning, to the police that were around her.She wrote it, it is in the dossier of this trial!
CP: That is not true!

So to clarify it should be stated that it was written in the presence of the penitentiary police that were around her according to her lawyer but that is disputed by Patrick's lawyer.

It is a matter of debate as to whether the quote is more helpful than harmful. I make it clear that it is my opinion that it is more helpful. Amanda's lawyer also uses the same quote when Amanda is testifying.

 

[Chris_Halkides]

whose pants should really be on fire

Thanks Mary. Looks like we agree here.

Supporters of Knox believe that the police lie about every single detail of the case that does not confirm their own. Knox and Sollecito always tell the truth, apart from those times when they are confused,, and in any case they are only confused because of police behaviour.

That is exactly how I see the case for innocence.

However, being of reasonably sound mind. I believe it to be nonsense.

colonelhall,

Supporters of Knox and Sollecito believe that the police lied because some of us (Charlie, in particular) have listed them on this thread. If lying is cause for losing credibility, then the credibility of ILE should be lowered accordingly. The red bathroom photo, while not quite a lie, deserves to be put in the category of next-door-to-a-lie, and I would imagine we could find a number of other examples of same.

All you seem able to discuss are false statements. Being of reasonably sound mind, I believe it is because that is all you have. The mountain of forensic evidence turned out to be a molehill.

 

[RoseMontague]

I never said Charlie is lying. the people involved and the families work for the freedom of the wrongfully convicted. They have no duty to provide you, or any guilters with fuel for their crackpot statement analysis or other smear.

Frankly, complaining that the defense withholds anything from the public disgusts me. All of the incriminating evidence, along with multiple lies were released to the media from the day one by ILE and prosecution. They withheld arbitrarily what they thought were not helpful for the conviction, though. Why don't you concentrate on what the prosecution withholds not only from the public, but from the defense?

PMF has stated they have information they have not released as well. I don't know how true this is but perhaps Fine should inquire about this. Personally, I would like to have everything I can get my hands on and I support it being available to any and all within the guidelines of good taste and common sense as well as not being harmful or hurtful to an innocent party or family member of one of those involved in the case.

 

[platonov]

I was referring to this quote in my comment regarding in the presence of police:



So to clarify it should be stated that it was written in the presence of the penitentiary police that were around her according to her lawyer but that is disputed by Patrick's lawyer.

It is a matter of debate as to whether the quote is more helpful than harmful. I make it clear that it is my opinion that it is more helpful. Amanda's lawyer also uses the same quote when Amanda is testifying.

Clarify ???
No RM , that 'non-point' is not what CP is disputing

He is disputing (from memory) that AK withdrew her false accusation ...it was a standard trope when faced with questions about the issue [w.r.t the new 'knowledge' she had by the 10th especially] to claim she had already withdrawn the charge. Nobody bought it.

 

[RoseMontague]

Candace Dempsey has a link to the seven-page diary of Amanda. It is on page five where Amanda states a nun came to visit her and told her to be patient that God knows everything and would help her to remember. After the nun left Amanda sat down to write and the memories came back to her of what had happened that night. She said she wrote everything she could remember and an explanation for her confusion.

If the one quote we do know from the 7 November memorandum is not in this diary then we know that we are talking 2 different documents.

 

[Chris_Halkides]

Danial Williams

Why do we assume that even sober and straight people can answer questions for hours on end without saying something that sounds confused or contradictory?

kestrel,

I agree. Although I admire Fuji's steadfastness, not every combination of interrogator and subject will produce this result, IMHO. Fuji's position implies that he or she does not believe that there are false confessions, and that is empirically wrong.

Moreover, when police say that they have evidence to put you in a particular place, you are inclined to imagine how this could have possibly come about, even to the point of absurdity. The Norfolk Four case is helpful here. Danial Williams at one point imagined that he might have been sleepwalking and gone over to Michelle's apartment to rape and murder her. It never happened, but even saying it aloud probably did not help Mr. Williams' case.