Continuation - Discussion of the Amanda Knox case

[LondonJohn]

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.

Not a strong argument at all, I'm afraid.

Why do you think that this young man (apparently of normal mental capacity) told the police that he was involved in a murder, when he was in fact subsequently proven to have been on a completely different continent at the time of the killing?

http://www.yourdiscovery.com/video/secrets-of-interrogation-admission-of-guilt/

Strange, isn't it? Very strange indeed. But true.

 

[shuttlt]

Have you ever read the Aeneid, shuttlt.....?

Sadly no, classical poetry has never been my thing.

 

[LondonJohn]

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."

Unfortunately you've erroneously referred to (and linked to) the Supreme Court of Cassation. This is not the same court that Knox and Sollecito are currently having their appeal heard in. It's the court where Guede had his final appeal heard. Knox and Sollecito are currently being tried in the Court of Assizes of Appeal (Corte d'Assise d'Appello), in a trial de novo.

 

[christianahannah]

Probably the two most important pieces of evidence as well as the witness whose testimony contradicts the alibi. As has been pointed out, he has left open the option of a new review of other evidence at a later time in this appeal. I agree with the poster that indicated if these three things fall apart then there is not a case left to be made for guilt.

I agree with you to a point. It depends on the reason for the DNA evidence not being reliable or thrown out. If the evidence is thrown out because there is not enough extracted to run a second test (that is the case with the knife, not the case with the clasp) then that doesn't necessarily cast doubt on the rest of the evidence collected. If it is thrown out because of faulty collection procedures and testing methods then it would cast doubt on the other evidence collected. I don't see how the case against them could proceed, regardless of other witness testimony and conflicting alibis, etc.

If Curatolo's testimony stands, I think then the judge will decide on an independent review of Raffaele's computer (not sure about Amanda's or Meredith's). Same with the additional requests of the testing of the stain, etc. if the clasp and knife are found not compromised.

 

[Katody Matrass]

All the incriminating evidence? Please! What percentage of photo's, what percentage of the diaries, what percentage of anything has made it's way into the public this way?

Simple. Everything that was even remotely incriminating or smearing. If nothing stopped ILE and prosecution from spreading lies about the bleach receipts, missing pieces of clothing, alibi-breaking Harry Potter books etc. you think they would miss opportunity to make public evidence both incriminating and real?

Idea that there is some secret evidence, not disclosed by Massei in his motivation or by prosecution in the media is widely circulating but ridiculous.
You're not the first to make this argument, I noticed many colpevolisti resort to it recently when they are out of options. I get it as capitulation.

 

[Supernaut]

I for one had never heard this German/Jew thing until you just now linked to it.

Then you are not well enough informed to comment.

The quote has appeared with monotonous regularity in the press ever since Mudede's story appeared. For example, here in the the "prestigious" Telegraph (UK), the hack sees fit to use it in a report last December

edit >> oops forgot linky;

here

 

[christianahannah]

Unfortunately you've erroneously referred to (and linked to) the Supreme Court of Cassation. This is not the same court that Knox and Sollecito are currently having their appeal heard in. It's the court where Guede had his final appeal heard. Knox and Sollecito are currently being tried in the Court of Assizes of Appeal (Corte d'Assise d'Appello), in a trial de novo.

I think Fuji was linking this in response to Charlie's hypothesis of what the Supreme Court would do if the original verdict of Amanda and Raffaele is upheld at the appeal trial.

 

[LondonJohn]

It may happen, but people have been certain that all this evidence was on the cusp of being thrown out since at least the early days of the first trial. After losing in the first trial it turned out that that had always been the expected outcome and that the appeal was where the truth would come out.

Well, I personally didn't start following this case at all until March 2010 - three months after the verdict. However, had I been commenting in February-December 2009 I would definitely have said that the knife absolutely shouldn't have been accepted as evidence by the court, and that the bra clasp probably shouldn't have been accepted either. When the motivations document revealed that the court had blithely accepted both pieces of evidence, I would have (and did) immediately say that the the court's reasoning was definitely wrong on the knife, and probably wrong on the bra clasp.

In contrast, most pro-guilt commentators have been consistent in their very vocal and unequivocal belief in the strength of the knife and bra clasp DNA evidence. Until around last Sunday. Strange. But true.

 

[LondonJohn]

Sadly no, classical poetry has never been my thing.

Ah shame - there's a really interesting story in it about an artificial horse.

 

[Charlie Wilkes]

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?

I haven't posted Amanda's diary because it is private and most of it is not relevant. I will not post anything that shows Meredith's body. Other than that, I have shared the most important material with this group. I really don't have this Nov. 7 document, but I will inquire about it.

 

[colonelhall]

Halides 1: ". Why should I put stock into what he has to say under these circumstances?"

You don't have to. What you think has no bearing on this case. You can continue to overlook the fact that the pair were convicted unanimously. You can forever, have no respect for the review, if it does not go your way. You can sit and smoke your pipe till the cows come home and convince yourself that you have been successfully whacking moles all day, but in the end, I doubt if anyone but the most die-hard Knox supporter is convinced by what you have to say.

 

[Katody Matrass]

________________________


Fair enough, let's untangle Raffaele's haywire grammar.


"The investigators asked me if she had told me to
say anything but (unfortunately, I now say) itʹs not like that: all I have said, I have said
[fatto] of my own free will."


On my reading, all four of these statements are entailed:

1. The cops asked me whether Amanda had once told me to say anything.
2. I am now saying that Amanda never asked me to say anything.
3. Everything that I said to the cops I said of my own free will.
4. It's unfortunate that I am only now saying this, because had I been saying this earlier---to the same cops---I might not be in the present unfortunate situation.

It's clear to me that Raffaele is writing that earlier he had been saying something else to the cops and that something else was that Amanda had told him---or "induced" him to say something. This is confirmed by the Matteini Report in which, according to the cops, on November 5/6 Raffaele had blamed Amanda for inducing him to make a statement which he would not otherwise have made.

///

Your interpretation is wrong. Let's get to it by the means of auxiliary questions:

What is it that Amanda told him to say?​

 

[christianahannah]

I haven't posted Amanda's diary because it is private and most of it is not relevant. I will not post anything that shows Meredith's body. Other than that, I have shared the most important material with this group. I really don't have this Nov. 7 document, but I will inquire about it.

I can state that when Charlie says something I believe him. He has never denied me a request and if he doesn't have something he says so.

He and I may disagree on some points but I have not found it to doubt his word. He has made information available to those who want a mature discussion of the case and who are searching for the truth.

As far as the November 7 memorial, I think it may have to do with page 5 of the diary which is linked on Candace Dempsey's blog. Amanda talks about meeting with a nun and then a writing down of facts which came to her memory after the nun left.

 

[Chris_Halkides]

changing one's mind about the case

It's so obvious that I feel silly pointing it out, but surely this argument goes both ways? Perhaps there is some pathological reason why you are convinced of their innocence?

shuttlt,

At least two of the pro-innocence posters have discussed as yet untested evidence that would make us change our minds about the case, depending on the results of those tests--with the obvious caveat of their being done objectively. I will spare you the search: breaking open the ordinary kitchen knife and looking for blood inside, and determining the donor of the putative semen stain. What evidence would cause you to change your mind?

 

[Chris_Halkides]

two questions

Halides 1: ". Why should I put stock into what he has to say under these circumstances?"

You don't have to. What you think has no bearing on this case. You can continue to overlook the fact that the pair were convicted unanimously. You can forever, have no respect for the review, if it does not go your way. You can sit and smoke your pipe till the cows come home and convince yourself that you have been successfully whacking moles all day, but in the end, I doubt if anyone but the most die-hard Knox supporter is convinced by what you have to say.

colonelhall,

Did Massei violate a fundamental tenet of forensic genetics in his discussion of the clasp? Did the prosecution release the electronic data files, standard operating procedures and machine logs?

I will help you out. The answers are yes and no, in that order. Thus the trial was not fair and Massei does not know enough about forensic genetics to be trying this case. Using the verdict as evidence in a thread whose reason for being is to test that verdict is a nonstarter of an argument.

 

[shuttlt]

Simple. Everything that was even remotely incriminating or smearing. If nothing stopped ILE and prosecution from spreading lies about the bleach receipts, missing pieces of clothing, alibi-breaking Harry Potter books etc. you think they would miss opportunity to make public evidence both incriminating and real?

Idea that there is some secret evidence, not disclosed by Massei in his motivation or by prosecution in the media is widely circulating but ridiculous.
You're not the first to make this argument, I noticed many colpevolisti resort to it recently when they are out of options. I get it as capitulation.

No, I agree, something like a bleach receipt, if it existed, would come out in the court documents that have been officially released. Having said that, that process didn't reveal the contents of her "confession", or indeed many other documents and photographs in a way that we could pick over them and form our own opinion.

 

[shuttlt]

Ah shame - there's a really interesting story in it about an artificial horse.

Ah!

 

[Chris_Halkides]

a better question

Halides 1: ". Why should I put stock into what he has to say under these circumstances?"

You don't have to. What you think has no bearing on this case. You can continue to overlook the fact that the pair were convicted unanimously. You can forever, have no respect for the review, if it does not go your way. You can sit and smoke your pipe till the cows come home and convince yourself that you have been successfully whacking moles all day, but in the end, I doubt if anyone but the most die-hard Knox supporter is convinced by what you have to say.

colonelhall,

Perhaps I asked the wrong question previously, or perhaps you twisted it around so as to avoid discussing the actual evidence. Why should the appeals court put any confidence in a report that displays faulty reasoning about the clasp and is based upon a trial where the right of discovery was trampled?

 

[shuttlt]

shuttlt,

At least two of the pro-innocence posters have discussed as yet untested evidence that would make us change our minds about the case, depending on the results of those tests--with the obvious caveat of their being done objectively. I will spare you the search: breaking open the ordinary kitchen knife and looking for blood inside, and determining the donor of the putative semen stain. What evidence would cause you to change your mind?

I'm sure lots of things would, but, off the top of my head, an alibi would probably do it.

 

[shuttlt]

I can state that when Charlie says something I believe him. He has never denied me a request and if he doesn't have something he says so.

I agree. Having said that, there are clearly lies and liars involved in this case. I have no particular reason to doubt Charlie, other than that much rests on his honesty.