Continuation - Discussion of the Amanda Knox case

[RWVBWL]

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.

Hi Fuji,
I agree with you.
Tell the truth, keep telling the truth, again, and again, and again...

I've never been thru a hardcore police interrogation.
But I too have gone thru a polygraph test, at about age 21. I did so without a lawyer present.
This was in the private sector though, a job I had working at a 7-11 convienence store, of all places, for 6 months as a cashier.
Kept my job, but a few weeks later I bailed on it, for after saving as much as I could, I headed over to continue my dream, surfing the North Shore for a month!
Kinda reminds me of Amanda Knox who worked 3 mediocre jobs to further her own dream, getting to Italy to study...

But that's not my reason for responding to your personal story, which I do thank you for posting.
Below I have a few questions for you, if you have the time over the next few days, what with it being the holidays and everyone's busy(!), please write back...

1) Did you also "visit" the police station during the previous 3 days before your interrogation and polygraph test?
2) Had the police also been yelling at you 2 days before you had your official interrogation and polygraph test?
3) Did you speak the same language as the police?
If not, did you have an unbiased, proficient language mediator,
opps, I mean interpretor present to assist you?
4) When you underwent your police interrogation, did you do so late at night?
5) Were you in a clear, coherant state of mind? or were you stoned?
6) Was your interrogation audio aon/or vdieo recorded?
7) Did you have a lawyer present?

These questions I ask you Fuji, are some of what Amanda Knox went thru.

I've been arrested in a foreign city where I did not speak the native language, late at night, while drunk.
(Do not skinny dip late at night when beautiful gals are yellin' at you to take it off when swimming at the fine hotels located in Rosarito Beach, Baja California, Mexico!)
It would have been A LOT different mentally to deal with the Spanish speaking Mexican cops if I were stoned.
Without a lawyer present.

Laura Mezzetti or Filomena Romanelli, who immediately lawyered up,
should have helped their housemate and new foreign friend get a lawyer too, in my humble opinion. It sucks they didn't.
It probably would have been as easy as calling their own place of work...

I believe that Amanda Knox and Raffaele Sollecito did tell the truth, again, and again, and again...
Except for that 1 night when they were officially interrogated, without use of audio and/or video recording devices.

 

[shuttlt]

We are The System, my friend. We the people. Us.

Have you ever read "Horton Hears a Who" by Dr. Seuss? It's the best manual for direct action against wrongful conviction that has ever been written.

It's not that I don't think people can change the world. I just don't think that posting to this forum is going to help. You may very well be doing things to do with the case on top of posting here. I'm not.

 

[shuttlt]

Perhaps many of us like a good, futile, endless debate?
Your reason for your reply is discussed in the The Hidden Brain.

Perhaps. I haven't read it.

You believe arguments you make here may be picked up and used by the defence in the trial.

This is the butterfly effect.

By posting on the JREF? Are you doing anything else to improve justice worldwide?
This is the butterfly effect.

Neither side of this discussion on this forum is making the slightest bit of difference to The System.

This is the subject of chaos theory.

From Wikipedia:

I don't think you understand the butterfly effect or chaos theory.

 

[Jungle Jim]

I don't think we need to be wasting much time listening to "ace reporter" Charles Mudede (that's right, his surname name is spelled M-U-D-E-D-E). Here he is reporting accurately and with some "interesting" assertions (after a week in Perugia, he knew everyone living within 150m of Sollecito's apartment - that's one popular, gregarious guy!):

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=U6McNeAjsLo

And here, for posterity's sake, is one of his straight-up, factual pieces about the case:
http://www.thestranger.com/seattle/if-she-did-it/Content?oid=2929733

And there, in a stroke, is his credibility as a journalistic reporter on this case completely sunk without trace. Goodbye, Charles Mudede.

PS I wonder if "The Bard" managed to spell Mudede's name correctly when she contacted him........?

I agree he is not a good reporter. Why then did you feel it necessary to make this post? The first link is from March 2008. Seems like you're dredging up old news with no purpose. The second link (from Dec. 2009), that you describe as "...straight up, factual pieces" is entitled, Fiction: If She Did It.

 

[Onofarar]

Hi Onafarar,
I believe #5 on your list is only partially correct.
From what I recall, on the night of the 5th, Raffaele and Amanda, trying to have a normal evening, had dinner at a friend of Raffaele's. They smoked out and then the police called Raffaele to let him know that he needed to come in for further questioning. He asked for time to finish dinner, which I gather did not sit well with the cops.
From what it appears like, Amanda was not specifically called in for further questioning, although Giobbi(?) says he was mathmatically sure he gave that order.

If you were Amanda, and your housemate was stabbed to her death by persons unknown, would you have stayed with the newly met friend(s) of your new boyfriend, or would you too have gone to the police station, even if were not specifically asked to?

I believe that Amanda Knox went to the safest place she knew of, in the company of the 1 person she trusted the most while in Italy.

And that person, Raffaele Sollecito,
stoned and interrogated by cops bent on getting a confession before Amanda's Mom arrived the next day,
seemingly agreed with these cops that he could not be sure if Amanda had spent the whole night with him when he was asleep...

That is an interesting way to trip up a person being questioned, especially one stoned.
What would your response be? What if you are alone?
Tonight I will sleep alone, no witness, nothing.
How can I have an ironclad alibi that I was asleep when I said that I was?
How can you or anyone ever really prove that they were asleep too? Or that their spouse or boyfriend/girlfriend was with them, all night?

Thanks for the correction/modification.
BTW I appreciate your honesty in your posts you have been very candid about your personal life experiences and how they have shaped your opinion of this case. Also like your laidback writing style - prototypical surfer dude.

 

[Jungle Jim]

Hi Fuji,

Laura Mezzetti or Filomena Romanelli, who immediately lawyered up,
should have helped their housemate and new foreign friend get a lawyer too, in my humble opinion. It sucks they didn't.
It probably would have been as easy as calling their own place of work...

I have seen this assertion made several times in this thread. I am aware that in a tapped phone conversation between Amanda and Filomenia, Filomenia states that she has (will) contact a lawyer to see about getting out of their lease (btw, a course of action that Amanda does not disagree with). Do you have a source that shows that Filomenia and/or Laura "immediately" hired a lawyer?

 

[Onofarar]

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.

Hope you are wrong ... but afraid you are right.

 

[Onofarar]

Great Point

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.

Hi Christianahannah.
You bring up a great point - what are the qualificiations of the two persons appointed by the court to perform the independent review. It sounds like at least one of the two has strong credentials. Anyone have some bonfides or cirriculum vitae to post? (At least they may not be my worst nightmare - 2 home economics profs from U of Rome.)

 

[Charlie Wilkes]

It's not that I don't think people can change the world. I just don't think that posting to this forum is going to help. You may very well be doing things to do with the case on top of posting here. I'm not.

Indeed I am. I have made this case the center of my life, and I am in daily contact with a large, well-educated and resourceful contingent of people who have done likewise. Our shared goal - our obsession - is to get Amanda and Raffaele out of prison, using whatever legal means are available. We will do it the easy way, or we will do it the hard way. We will follow a relatively quick route, or we will slog over a long and excruciating route. That choice is out of our hands, but the outcome is not.

 

[LondonJohn]

I agree he is not a good reporter. Why then did you feel it necessary to make this post? The first link is from March 2008. Seems like you're dredging up old news with no purpose. The second link (from Dec. 2009), that you describe as "...straight up, factual pieces" is entitled, Fiction: If She Did It.

Oh, I don't know - his name just came into my head for some reason

And sorry about the misunderstanding - I'll put a *sarcasm alert* signal before writing a sarcastic remark next time.

 

[LondonJohn]

It's not that I don't think people can change the world. I just don't think that posting to this forum is going to help. You may very well be doing things to do with the case on top of posting here. I'm not.

In this case, you might be wrong. Personally, I don't post here because I feel like I might be able to influence the case. But clearly there are people reading (and posting on) this thread who have direct connections to Knox's family, and by extension her legal team.

I might be totally wrong, but I think that some of the discussions that have taken place on here regarding

DNA
ToD
the unique nature of the lock on the front door of the cottage
the break-in
what Luminol does and doesn't show
the cellphone data

might have assisted Knox's (and Sollecito's) defence teams to some degree - even if only a very small degree. Who knows, perhaps in years to come this thread might be held up as an example of the positive power of Web 2.0......

 

[katy_did]

__________________________

Well, katy_did, Raffaele does write, explicitly, that--- at one time, while interrogated by the cops---his version was that Amanda had told him to lie. In retracting his accusation against Amanda he writes in his Diary:

"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."

///

Fine, I can only echo Katody and note that the quote you posted doesn't say what you say it says. I'll await your answer to his question.

 

[LondonJohn]

Hi Christianahannah.
You bring up a great point - what are the qualificiations of the two persons appointed by the court to perform the independent review. It sounds like at least one of the two has strong credentials. Anyone have some bonfides or cirriculum vitae to post? (At least they may not be my worst nightmare - 2 home economics profs from U of Rome.)

Let's hope that as a bare minimum they understand the extreme procedures and protocols which must be observed if any LCN testing is to be regarded as reliable and usable as evidence in a court of law. I suspect they do.

 

[The Third Man]

Let's start with the premise that the phones were taken to be sold as part of the proceeds from the burglary. Any competent (may be a stretch to call Rudy such) burglar should know that cell phones are like homing devices and if on can pinpoint his movements from the crime scene. Thus turning them off would be a high priority. And since one roommate had returned unexpectedly, who know when another would return and raise the alarm. Therefore, when the phones could not be turned off quickly they became worthless or worse a real danger to Rudy's freedom and were tossed. He already had 300 - 350 Euros and credit cards anyway - the phones were just a bonus.

The above makes sense, however, the reason that I've been exploring the 22.00 TOD scenario is that there are aspects of the 21.00 TOD scenario that I find implausible. The first and obvious point with the theory, is Guede being on the toilet when Meredith arrives home. If this is the case Guede must be the first Burglar in history to set out on a job needing a job! The second is the 1hr and 13 mins between Meredith being killed and the phones being dumped. From the evidence it appears that Meredith died quickly, within minutes, even if he cleaned up outside the room it's only going to take 10 or 15 mins, and as you say if one housemate had already arrived home he must have worried that he might be disturbed again, so he would want to get out ASAP. Also, if he killed her at 21.00 why would he wait until 22.00 to try and turn the phones off? Just some things I've been ruminating on.

Incidentally, I know it's off topic, but what are people making of the Joanna Yeates case?

Where's the pizza?

 

[katy_did]

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.

I think Carla Vecchiotti is Sabrina Misseri's defence consultant (she's mentioned here). I agree with you that Hellmann's choice of her would contradict the idea he's not interested in a genuine review of the evidence. It would be interesting to know more about Stefano Conti, too.

 

[LondonJohn]

Looks like the Idaho Innocence Project can look forward to a spate of unpleasant emails and amateur sleuthing from a bunch of over-invested weirdos.

Firstly, it looks like an involvement with Knox's case falls within the IIP's charitable remit (it's not as if, for example, the IIP is pursuing clinical negligence cases). Second, whether it's acting within its remit is purely a question to be asked by the US authorities which grant charitable status, the donors to the IIP, and the central co-ordinators of the Innocence Project. Given that IIP's involvement in Knox's case is front and centre on its website's homepage, I hardly think they can be accused of hiding their involvement. And I'd imagine that donors, relevant authorities, and others connected with the Innocence project are very well aware by now of IIP's involvement with Knox.

Still, get those vitriolic emails flowing ASAP, comrades! What's the worst that could happen?!

 

[quadraginta]

Looks like the Idaho Innocence Project can look forward to a spate of unpleasant emails and amateur sleuthing from a bunch of over-invested weirdos.

Firstly, it looks like an involvement with Knox's case falls within the IIP's charitable remit (it's not as if, for example, the IIP is pursuing clinical negligence cases). Second, whether it's acting within its remit is purely a question to be asked by the US authorities which grant charitable status, the donors to the IIP, and the central co-ordinators of the Innocence Project. Given that IIP's involvement in Knox's case is front and centre on it's website' homepage, I hardly think they cab be accused of hiding their involvement. And I'd imagine that donors, relevant authorities, and others connected with the Innocence project are very well aware by now of IIP's involvement with Knox.

Still, get those vitriolic emails flowing ASAP, comrades! What's the worst that could happen?!

What are you talking about?

 

[Charlie Wilkes]

In this case, you might be wrong. Personally, I don't post here because I feel like I might be able to influence the case. But clearly there are people reading (and posting on) this thread who have direct connections to Knox's family, and by extension her legal team.

I might be totally wrong, but I think that some of the discussions that have taken place on here regarding

DNA
ToD
the unique nature of the lock on the front door of the cottage
the break-in
what Luminol does and doesn't show
the cellphone data

might have assisted Knox's (and Sollecito's) defence teams to some degree - even if only a very small degree. Who knows, perhaps in years to come this thread might be held up as an example of the positive power of Web 2.0......

It filters up. It probably doesn't affect the legal defense directly, but it helps shape public opinion, which affects the reputation of public officials and agencies. For example, points made in this discussion get carried over to the comments under news stories. The reporters who write those stories read the comments and evaluate them. The officers of the courts track the media coverage and use it to gauge public perception.

 

[katy_did]

The above makes sense, however, the reason that I've been exploring the 22.00 TOD scenario is that there are aspects of the 21.00 TOD scenario that I find implausible. The first and obvious point with the theory, is Guede being on the toilet when Meredith arrives home. If this is the case Guede must be the first Burglar in history to set out on a job needing a job! The second is the 1hr and 13 mins between Meredith being killed and the phones being dumped. From the evidence it appears that Meredith died quickly, within minutes, even if he cleaned up outside the room it's only going to take 10 or 15 mins, and as you say if one housemate had already arrived home he must have worried that he might be disturbed again, so he would want to get out ASAP. Also, if he killed her at 21.00 why would he wait until 22.00 to try and turn the phones off? Just some things I've been ruminating on.

I doubt it. Burglars do all sorts of odd things when breaking into houses, and the unfortunate effect of adrenalin/fear/nerves in that situation has been mentioned on the thread. Plus, Rudy had eaten that kebab... Raffaele's appeal notes that the intruder in the two other break-ins Rudy had been linked to had also apparently used the bathroom: in the nursery, the teacher found that someone had used the toilet and left it unflushed, and in the lawyer's office the bathroom light had been left on.

I agree with you about the problematic length of time between Meredith coming home and the phones being taken, if we assume she died within 5-10 minutes or so after arriving home. But all we know is that she probably died 10-15 minutes after the fatal wounds were made, which doesn't tell us how long the assault went on before that. Personally I think it's much more likely to have been a prolonged, escalating attack, in which Rudy probably had no intention initially of killing her. To me, that fits both the evidence and the overall situation better than a very sudden, deliberate attack by Rudy, and it would explain why he didn't try and turn off the phones till shortly before 10.

 

[LondonJohn]

The above makes sense, however, the reason that I've been exploring the 22.00 TOD scenario is that there are aspects of the 21.00 TOD scenario that I find implausible. The first and obvious point with the theory, is Guede being on the toilet when Meredith arrives home. If this is the case Guede must be the first Burglar in history to set out on a job needing a job! The second is the 1hr and 13 mins between Meredith being killed and the phones being dumped. From the evidence it appears that Meredith died quickly, within minutes, even if he cleaned up outside the room it's only going to take 10 or 15 mins, and as you say if one housemate had already arrived home he must have worried that he might be disturbed again, so he would want to get out ASAP. Also, if he killed her at 21.00 why would he wait until 22.00 to try and turn the phones off? Just some things I've been ruminating on.

Incidentally, I know it's off topic, but what are people making of the Joanna Yeates case?

Where's the pizza?

To answer your last question first: I'd be fairly confident that her boyfriend killed her. He then disposed of mess (blood? broken items) that had been caused during the killing, along with the pizza that she was planning to eat, in a rubbish bag which he dumped somewhere on his way out with her body. He then dumped her body at some point on the journey to his parents' house. Give it a couple of weeks, and they'll find some evidence or a good witness who saw him at a time and place that he hadn't said that he was.

Second, nobody's suggesting that Meredith died at 9pm on the button. The most likely scenario is that she arrived home at just before 9pm, and went into her bedroom, where she started calling her mother. Meanwhile Guede, who'd indeed been on the toilet when Meredith entered, tried unsuccessfully to sneak out, and ended up making enough noise to alert Meredith, who terminated the call to her mother before it connected. If this is correct, then the first interaction between Guede and Meredith took place at 8.56pm.

The other option is that Meredith's first call to her mother was made while she was still on her way home, and was aborted because of signal drop-out. Suppose then that Meredith entered the cottage at just after 9pm, and the confrontation with Guede started at 9-9.05pm.

Anyhow, it's reasonable to suggest that that there was an initial verbal confrontation lasting a minute or two, followed by an intensive physical confrontation. Under such a scenario, it's then reasonable to suggest that the stab wounds themselves would have been inflicted at some point between 9.10 and 9.20pm. If Guede then carried on with a sexual assault as Meredith lay dying, this might have taken until around 9.30 - which would probably have been coincidental with Meredith's death from asphyxiation and blood loss.

So maybe Guede spent 5-10 minutes recovering his composure and trying to take in the enormity of what had happened. We're up to 9.35-9.40. He then made a cursory attempt to mop up some of the blood around Meredith's body (another 5 minutes), and then he realised that his hands and arms were covered in blood, and that there was blood on the front of his trousers. He therefore went back to the bathroom, washed his hands/arms in the sink and washed his trousers under either the shower or the bidet (my money's on the shower). This might have taken another 10 minutes in total (washing and drying off). We're not at around 9.55pm.

Guede might then have revisited Meredith's room for the last time, to cover her body, steal her money and cards, and take her phones. This would then dovetail in with a hasty and abortive attempt to turn off Meredith's UK phone at around 10pm (one might assume that he successfully managed to turn off the Italian phone at around the same time).

So I think that Guede might have left the cottage at just after 10pm. He walked around the city wall (to minimise contact with others), and I think that Meredith's UK phone gave an audible alert for an incoming MMS message (probably a photo) at 10.13pm, and automatically initiated a WAP connection and started downloading the photo. I think that Guede fumbled around, and stopped the download 9 seconds later. He then realised that having the phones in his possession was a liability, and walked/ran a bit further up the road to where he thought there was a wild ravine - where he tossed the phones into what he presumed was undergrowth.

I think that this timeline doesn't leave any large and strange periods unaccounted for. But that's just my opinion.