Continuation - Discussion of the Amanda Knox case

[Chris_Halkides]

hedonist?

So now the question becomes why a young hedonist of 23 would have returned home at 9:00 pm on a holiday weekend night, there to roll a joint, dine and fiddle with his computer in solitude.

mopoirot,

I have always assumed that when Raf talked about returning home at 9, it was in reference to Halloween. Is that your understanding also? Perhaps he was working on his thesis, which I do not think was finished at this point. I could be wrong, and I do not know the details. I get the impression that Raffaele smoked more cannabis than was comfortable with his father (I am with his father on this one), but beyond that, I am not sure why you would refer to him as a hedonist.

 

[LondonJohn]

Simple.

Rudy didn't stab her, someone else did.

I wonder who?

Who did stab her then, and with what implement(s)?

 

[moodstream]

Thanks, I appreciate the response. A couple of follow up questions: (1) what does IIP stand for? (2) Do you have a link to the source of the "early on" quote?

Are you dragging this out for dramatic effect? Injustice In Perugia.

Although I think I read it in Murder In Italy, but skimming through the pages I could not find it.

 

[katy_did]

So far there is this on this Stefano Conti (if it is the same person, it appears to be). I am using Google translation and original version. He is also mentioned other times in the document.

DR. Stefano Conti

* Born on 28/02/1952.
* Graduated in Medicine in 1986.
* Specialist at the University "La Sapienza" of Rome in Legal Medicine and Insurance in 1990 and in Aeronautical and Space Medicine in 2000.
* Technical Consultant since 1991 at the Institute of Legal Medicine, University "La Sapienza" of Rome.
* Assistant (now Executive Level I) in the Department of Forensic Medicine of the Policlinico Umberto I in Rome since 1991.
* Improved in micrograph, Medical Informatics, in Civil Defence and methods for the analysis of surveys and biomedical signal processing at the University "La Sapienza" of Rome.
* Alternate member of the Committees for Exams from 1994.
* Has participated in conferences and scientific congresses with communications.
* It has, as per announcement, ten publications, as per attached list, all together.

http://translate.google.com/transla...commissioni/attivita5/finaleF22BmedRU_ris.htm

DOTT. STEFANO CONTI

* Nato il 28/02/1952.
* Laureato in Medicina e Chirurgia nel 1986.
* Specializzato presso l'Università "La Sapienza" di Roma in Medicina Legale e delle Assicurazioni nel 1990 e in Medicina Aeronautica e Spaziale nel 2000 .
* Collaboratore tecnico dal 1991 presso l'Istituto di Medicina Legale dell'Università "La Sapienza" di Roma.
* Assistente (ora Dirigente di I livello) presso il Servizio Speciale di Medicina Legale I del Policlinico Umberto I di Roma dal 1991.
* Perfezionato in Micrografia, Informatica Medica, in Protezione civile e in Metodi per l'analisi delle indagini e dei segnali biomedici presso l'Università "la Sapienza" di Roma.
* Membro supplente nelle Commissioni per gli Esami di Profitto dal 1994.
* Ha partecipato a Convegni e Congressi Scientifici anche con comunicazioni.
* Presenta, come da bando di concorso, dieci pubblicazioni, come da elenco allegato, tutti in collaborazione.

http://www.uniroma1.it/amm-personale/concorsi/commissioni/attivita5/finaleF22BmedRU_ris.htm

Thanks very much for that info. I did try to look for information on him but found there are a lot of Stefano Contis out there. LOL. He seems less high profile than the other expert but obviously still very experienced, which can only be a good thing.

 

[LondonJohn]

Second this. I'll believe it when the prosecution team says "we'll like to thank those from the JREF forum for their invaluable research and advice". There's some serious over estimation of the importance of what's posted here.

I don't think the prosecution team will be saying anything like that in the near or distant future.

 

[LondonJohn]

Yes, christianahannah, you are correct. Both Charlie Wilkes and LondonJohn are in error, and I note in passing that neither has corrected themselves.

Fuji's original post was entirely ambiguous. No correction is necessary or appropriate.

 

[LondonJohn]

And US taxpayers and the law enforcement community.

US taxpayers have nothing to do with this. The fact that IIP is a charity and thus its donations are tax-deductible is purely a matter for the relevant US federal/state authorities which bestow charitable status. Saying that US taxpayers have anything to do with this is as fatuous as saying that US taxpayers have a right to complain directly about a US Defense Department overspend on a missile programme. Or the type of tarmacadam used in a roadbuilding programme. After all, that's still their tax dollars at issue, isn't it? And I'd imagine that law enforcement would only ever be called in if the relevant US authority which bestows charitable status were to refer the case to law enforcement. What law do you think has been broken?

How do you know that "they" are aware of the IIP's involvement?

I'd wager that they look at the IIP website from time to time, and probably speak to the senior figures at IIP. In addition if the US is anything like the UK, the IIP will have to submit a yearly or twice-yearly declaration to the US authorities to declare that it meets the criteria for charitable status, and will also be subject to regular audits from both the authorities and to its donors (by way of annual reports etc).

Either way, the IIP's involvement in the Knox case is quite clearly something that the IIP is clearly happy to publicise - it's mentioned in a very prominent place on the front page of the website. If the IIP were trying to conceal its involvement, I might agree with you. But they're not, and I don't.

They can only do so if they are aware of the situation.

I imagine that they are.

Again - on what basis do you make this assertion?

As above

 

[LondonJohn]

To which argument are you referring? Mine or ChrisC's? ChrisC said:

"When you confront people with lies, the only answer to support your lie is more lies. "

I replied by saying:

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

I can clearly see the vapidity of ChrisC's argument, but where is the fault in mine?

Or was there some other argument you were inferring to have been made by myself? The only argument I was making can be distilled down to the quote of mine posted immediately above.



I have no idea. Perhaps he has something else to conceal. Perhaps he is under the influence of some substance. Perhaps he is an imbecile. Why do you think that he did so? More to the point - how does this establish that Knox gave the Perugian investigation a "false" confession/accusation?

No. You were using a an example from your own personal history to imply that "normal" people simply don't make false confessions. "Normal" people simply tell the truth, according to you. My counter-example (captured on videotape, thank goodness) showed that this is just not true. People can and do make false confessions to serious crimes. And not always because they are mentally challenged or under the influence of mind-altering substances. This chap didn't appear to fall into either category. I think that his false confession came about as a result of police coercion, and improper interrogation techniques. I think that the same thing happened with Knox, and to a much lesser extent with Sollecito.

 

[HumanityBlues]

From here:

"Reasons for Staging

Principally, staging takes place for two reasons--to direct the investigation away from the most logical suspect or to protect the victim or victim's family. It is the offender who attempts to redirect the investigation. This offender does not just happen to come upon a victim, but is someone who almost always has some kind of association or relationship with the victim. This person, when in contact with law enforcement, will attempt to steer the investigation away from himself, usually by being overly cooperative or extremely distraught. Therefore, investigators should never eliminate a suspect who displays such distinctive behavior.

The second reason for staging, to protect the victim or the victim's family, occurs for the most part in rape-murder crimes or autoerotic fatalities. This type of staging is performed by the family member or person who finds the body. Since perpetrators of such crimes leave their victims in degrading positions, those who find the bodies attempt to restore some dignity to the victim."

The person who wrote this article said this week he thought Amanda Knox was innocent.

 

[Jungle Jim]

Are you dragging this out for dramatic effect? Injustice In Perugia.
Although I think I read it in Murder In Italy, but skimming through the pages I could not find it.

No, I really did not know what the acronym meant. I see that it also could mean Idaho Innocence Project.

 

[nopoirot]

True, Raf avers to his diary that all he told the police, he told of his own free will. The problem is that he recalls having told the police, in a misguided moment, something quite different. 11-7: "The judge questioned me today, and he told me that I gave three different statements, but the only difference I find is that I said that Amanda persuaded me to talk crap [dire cazzate] in the

second version, and that she [quella] had gone out to the bar where she worked, Le Chic." He goes on to claim, of course, that in truth and fact he doesn't "exactly" remember whether she left or not.

Is it really of much consequence whether you believe Raf admitted that Amanda had put him up to perjury? His previous version dovetailed with Amanda's, and by admitting that she had gone to Le Chic, he admitted that both of them had been lying.

I'm still waiting to hear how Raf was "coerced" into laying the "grossa cavolata."

 

[lionking]

I will be very surprised if we see such a quote from the prosecution team but from the defense team .. not surprised at all.

Yeah I know. It was Christmas Eve and I'd had a bit to drink. My point about the inflated opinion of what's posted here stands.

 

[Chris_Halkides]

confusion

I replied by saying:

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

I can clearly see the vapidity of ChrisC's argument, but where is the fault in mine?

Fuji,

The problem is that you don't consider the possibility that the original lie is along the lines of, "We have proof positive that you were at the murder scene..." Decent, honorable people might get confused and start to doubt their memory. I have given one example along these general lines already.

 

[Chris_Halkides]

not perjury

True, Raf avers to his diary that all he told the police, he told of his own free will. The problem is that he recalls having told the police, in a misguided moment, something quite different. 11-7: "The judge questioned me today, and he told me that I gave three different statements, but the only difference I find is that I said that Amanda persuaded me to talk crap [dire cazzate] in the

second version, and that she [quella] had gone out to the bar where she worked, Le Chic." He goes on to claim, of course, that in truth and fact he doesn't "exactly" remember whether she left or not.

Is it really of much consequence whether you believe Raf admitted that Amanda had put him up to perjury? His previous version dovetailed with Amanda's, and by admitting that she had gone to Le Chic, he admitted that both of them had been lying.

I'm still waiting to hear how Raf was "coerced" into laying the "grossa cavolata."

nopoirot,

I am not sure I am following you here. She did not go to Le Chic; therefore, it is doubtful to me that he was making a false statement previously. I think that you are a little free with your use of the words lying and perjury. The former means conscious, willful misstatements (not just false statements), and the latter refers to lying under oath.

If Raffaele's interrogation were like Amanda's (or Doug Preston's, for that matter), then it could have produced lies, confusion, or who knows what. Let's watch the recording together, and then see how we feel about...Oh, never mind.

 

[moodstream]

___________________________
My own theory, advanced by Patrick's attorney, Pacelli, is that the lovebirds went to the police station to accuse Patrick. If guilty they did this to have someone arrested for a crime they committed. If innocent they did this because Amanda was confident of Patrick's guilt, and the sooner he was arrested the safer she'd feel and the less interrogation inconvenience she'd suffer. I wouldn't be surprised if the defense during the APPEAL trial takes this route to explain the night of November 5/6 at the police station. Amanda's 15 minute apologetic Spontaneous Declaration before the court supports this view. We'll see.
///

1) At 8:18pm, Patrick Lumumba, Amanda’s boss at Le Chic, texted her to say that it was slow at work, just like a Sunday, and she didn’t need to come in. (Dempsey, MiI p146)

2) AK had two conversations with Lumumba prior to the interrogation, by phone he reached her at the Questura on Nov 2 at 7:30pm, and a street meeting at 1pm on Nov 5th. (Dempsey, MiI p146)

3) http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/ar...ls-framed-Merediths-murder.html#ixzz193SikCTD
He (Lumumba) was greeted outside by a convoy of seven police cars, sirens blazing, and driven to Perugia's police station, where he was subjected to a ten-hour interrogation.

"I was questioned by five men and women, some of whom punched and kicked me," he claims. "They forced me on my knees against the wall and said I should be in America where I would be given the electric chair for my crime. All they kept saying was, 'You did it, you did it.'

"I didn't know what I'd 'done'. I was scared and humiliated. Then, after a couple of hours one of them suggested they show me a picture of 'the dead girl' to get me to confess.

"It might sound naive, but it was only then that I made the connection between Meredith's death and my arrest. Stunned, I said, 'You think I killed Meredith?'

"They said, 'Oh, so now you've remembered'

------------

Your theory has the benefit of explaining why RS/AK gave the police the version of events that the police report, without bringing coercive police tactics into the explanation.


However, I believe your theory is not entirely up to the task.

For one thing, it fails to explain why AK/RS, if guilty, would choose to blame Lumumba, knowing that he was at his pub and surrounded by witnesses (even if slow he would not be alone).

No one says Knox attempted to clarify that Lumumba was alone or isolated for a period of time on the night of the murder, and if Knox is trying to blame him, I would think they would. So, RS/AK would have to offer to blame Lumumba in the face of the fact that they would expect him to have a provable alibi.

Second, Lumumba reports it took him hours of a very rough interrogation to even realize he was being accused of murdering MK. IIRC Dempsey has MK coming into the bar once, or infrequently at best. The connection between Lumumba and Kercher is very thin. Knox would know this. Why would Knox think the police would believe her? What’s believable about this story?

Third, if AK/RS are guilty, then they also staged the break in with the intention, one thinks, of blaming someone who broke in through the window. Why would AK/RS abandon trying to sell the cops on this artifice, after AK/RS took such pains to create it, and even if forced to do so, why would they actively attempt to sell the police any alternative theory? Why would they let themselves be connected to the crime in any way, even by suggesting the name of the killer?

Sure, (in your hypothesis) no one is buying the break in, but what do AK/RS care, as long as the police are not blaming AK/RS? What is the benefit of blaming Lumumba?

The idea to blame Lumumba had to be concocted prior to the interrogation since collectively made, and presumably from a concern blame was being directed towards them. Why even risk the interrogation? Why not simply get legal representation at that time, as Amanda was being encouraged to by her German Aunt, and others? It would not seem unusual. In fact, even for innocent AK/RS, at that point obtaining legal representation would have been right thing to do.

How is it helpful for them to blame Lumumba? At what stage of concocting this pitiful deceit do you think they agreed that Amanda would place herself at the scene of the crime while the murder was occurring?

Finally for the guilty argument, if Amanda Knox was really guilty, and staged a break in that left so much evidence pointing towards Guede, and Knox came to feel that the finger of blame was pointing at her, why wouldn’t she just blame Guede? It would end up far more convincing than Lumumba.

If the police convinced Knox they had evidence placing her at the scene of the crime, since (if guilty) she was there, why didn’t she make the police put their cards on the table and prove it, or, at the very least, simply clam up and demand a lawyer?

She (if guilty) had spent a night a few days prior brutally slaying her housemate in a manner both perverse and sadistic, followed it up with an elaborately engineered, hours long clean up and staged misdirection while her friend lay dead in the next room, and then calmly lead the police in and out of the cottage multiple times prior to the interrogation, and questioned prior to the interrogation, where she was reported as acting too calm. Do you honestly believe that a guilty Amanda would be phased in the slightest by the interrogation of Nov 5-6th? Only an innocent Amanda would be, I think.


Now, if innocent, why would she be convinced of Lumumba’s guilt prior to the interrogation? As per above, the connection between Lumumba and Kercher is slight, and the night of the murder Knox had good reason to conclude Lumumba would be at his pub.

I also don’t think it’s fair to say that Knox, before the interrogation started, decided (with or without RS) that if she felt bothered by the interrogators she would blame Lumumba. She has been accused of being selfish and immature, but that really takes the notion to extremes, I think.

However, if she was led by the police to believe that Patrick could be the killer, after many hours of interrogation, it could be believed that an innocent Amanda, scared and exhausted, broke down and tried to ‘help’ the police by ‘remembering’ that Lumumba was in the house with Kercher, while she was nearby. I could believe she felt that agreeing to what the police wanted to hear was her only way out of the interrogation room. Highly confused, she could talk herself into doubting what really did happen, and, anyway, telling the police what they wanted to hear would allow them to arrest Lumumba, who she could have come to believe, based on statements the police made to her, was a very dangerous man who killed her friend.

Ah, but that explanation would require coercive police tactics.

 

[Justinian2]

Originally Posted by Justinian2
I've never spent any time degrading another person.

This is a lie. You used to have a line in your JREF signature that said, "Guilters are evil".

I've never spent any much time degrading another person.

I degraded a group, not a person. I admit, I tend to pick on groups (like government) rather than people. Furthermore, I pick on groups that can and should change and I don't attribute the characteristics of the group to each person in that group and then pick on every person in that group.

Be a Christian tonight and forgive.

 

[Justinian2]

Could be. Without getting into a long debate on chaos and the nature of causality, loosely speaking, I doubt that the odds of either of us influencing the outcome are worth worrying about.

At this late date, yes.

Lawyers need tons of help to win cases like this. They especially need help from the defendant. They also need inspiration from others. I've given lawyers the necessary inspiration and help to win complex constitutional cases.

However, in this case I've borrowed most of the information from others.

A forum like this tests ideas and leaves no stone unturned. This forum might have helped. Did you?

I could have predicted that no guilter would claim that this forum could have helped anything. You didn't say anything unexpected.

Merry Christmas to even the Scrooges.

 

[RoseMontague]

Hi RWVBWL. Here's my answers to your questions:

1) No, though I had phone contact with the investigators.
2) No, there was no yelling by the police, before, during, or after the interrogation.
3) Yes, we all spoke English.
4) No, it was in the afternoon.
5) No, I'd never do anything as stupid as getting intoxicated before I knew I would have to meet and talk with the police, even if I wasn't going to an interrogation.
6) I have no idea if it was recorded or not.
7) I did not have a lawyer present, though I did speak to my attorney* before deciding to go through with the polygraph. (The polygraph results would have been inadmissible in a court of law; I willingly complied, knowing that I was innocent and wanting to resolve the situation as soon as possible.)

However, unlike Knox, I had a prior criminal history at the time of my interrogation. In fact, at the time, I was on probation for a misdemeanor offense similar in nature to the felony of which I was presently accused. *The only reason I even had "my own" attorney to consult with regarding the polygraph was because of this. As a result of these factors and my own psychological makeup, I was extremely nervous and agitated throughout the ordeal. I rank it as the second worst experience in my life (after watching my father die). Nevertheless, I did not lie.

I am well aware of the fact that my personally having withstood a forceful (though not coercive) interrogation has no bearing on how anyone else might deal with a similar situation. However, it does give me some background from which to assess the likelihood of Knox's confession/accusation being "false". My experiences and my readings of true crime literature inclines me to believe that, in Knox's case, this likelihood is near zero.

Did your lawyer let you know before you took your polygraph test that a common police tactic is to tell a suspect they flunked the test even if they passed?

 

[Chris_Halkides]

Filomena found a lawyer

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?

Jungle Jim,

Filomena got a lawyer right away. It is in her court testimony. Happy Holidays.

 

[nopoirot]

Well, hal, we're not in a court of law here, and I think a bit of rhetorical license in the characterization of untruthfulness harmless enough. If you're suggesting some theory of inadvertent untruthfulness, we part company.

Raf is not altogether consistent concerning what, precisely, Amanda gave him as the reason for her departure. Reading between the lines, I don't know that it's out of the question she told him she was going to Le Chic, and ended up elsewhere.

As I have earlier remarked, one of the problems with Raf's "coercion" is that he is quite loquacious in his diary about his tribulations, but nowhere complains of "coercive" techniques. I'm sure being forced to walk on bare foot is uncomfortable, but. . . .