Continuation - Discussion of the Amanda Knox case

[Kaosium]

I stand corrected. I mean Amanda found guilty, and getting the extra year in jail, for LYING about Patrick.

I think everyone affiliated with the police who was at that interrogation should get much more than a year in jail for the way they got that 'admission' out of her, how they then tried to pretend it was an 'accusation,' and then used it to scapegoat her to cover up their egregious error of arresting Patrick.

 

[RoseMontague]

The way I am reading the previous pages I posted is that he did retract his previous statements that Amanda went out and blames this on Amanda and also claims some difficulty in understanding either the police or Amanda or both, that is not real clear with the translations I get.

 

[Mrs.Columbo]

So now the defense has to prove that the accused are innocent. It's not merely enough that we have to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that the accused are innocent? What happened to the idea that the prosecution has to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that the accused are guilty? Isn't it enough that the Italians only need a slim majority and evidence consisting solely of ONE molecule of DNA?

I suppose that if this verdict gets overturned because the majority of the jury have moments of average intelligence that you will retreat into your safe sites and talk to yourselves about how truely bad the verdict was.

The defense has to prove the prosecution for wrong, thats their job.
Until now they were not able to do this.
Now I think it is the best to wait and see which results are coming from the appeal.

 

[Mary_H]

In your post #22936, responding to my comment about Amanda's trial testimony, you say "I am sure it all came to her later on that he had been in the same type of situation with the police that she had been in." I'm just pointing out that Amanda's "astonished" statement came in a trial which did not even begin until June, 2009, some 19 months after Raf had jerked the rug from under her. If she had not recovered her faith in Raf's fidelity by this time, when do you suppose she did?

In her trial testimony, Amanda described how she felt on November 5-6th, 2007, when she found out what Raffaele had said on November 5-6th, 2007.

FM: Yes, but the question is specific. Did you talk with your mother about the declarations that Sollecito made in the Questura?
AK: I remember telling her that I felt bad, I was astonished by those declarations.

Am I following you correctly? Would you prefer she had answered the question differently? Her answer says nothing about how she feels about Raffaele in the present.

 

[Mrs.Columbo]

He could have just been trying to figure out how it was even possible for Meredith's DNA to get on that knife. Odds are it was just contamination or a secondary transfer picked up from Amanda who lived with Meredith, but Raffaele wouldn't know that, he obviously believed that somehow the police had legitimately found Meredith's DNA on one of his kitchen knives. He might have just talked himself into it. What else would he be supposed to think?

Oh no - an innocent Raffaele did shout: Merediths DNA?? IMPOSSIBLE !! She never ever came even near that knife!

bud he didn't, to the contrary, he stummers some silly remark about pricking her whilst cooking together.
Yes: cooking together - not contamination, not transfer from Amanda comes in his mind.

 

[nopoirot]

Thank you, Rose. I'll have to pick up a copy of that book.

I'm pleased to see a consensus developing here that Raf did indeed tell the police that he and Amanda did not spend the entire night together, as he had previously represented. I have no problem with him subsequently claiming to a magistrate, after his arrest, that his prior confession was untrue. I will point out in passing that, in his diary entry of 11-12, he seems to be waffling again.

I don't buy into this business about fear of "calumnia" tying Amanda's tongue about the specific nature of the "hard evidence" she claims in her statement to have been intimidated with, or about police misconduct not alleged in her statements. In her trial, she wears out creation about the physical and psychological abuse retailed in her statements, but nothing else of a specific nature. We are left with yelling, cuffing on the back of the head a couple of times, accusations of lying and threats to have her transported to the Big House. That's just what she would say, isn't it?

So what's to understand, Kaosim? Raf got to worrying about the consequences of lying to the police, decided to "come clean," and promptly found himself cuffed and charged with murder. Little wonder that he (or his lawyer) quickly decided that he would be better off disavowing his confession that he had lied during the first several days of the investigation.

 

[Kaosium]

Oh no - an innocent Raffaele did shout: Merediths DNA?? IMPOSSIBLE !! She never ever came even near that knife!

bud he didn't, to the contrary, he stummers some silly remark about pricking her whilst cooking together.
Yes: cooking together - not contamination, not transfer from Amanda comes in his mind.

He might well have said that at some point, we'd need to see the tapes of his interrogation to determine just what happened. I'd like to know just what he meant by "psychologically tortured" as well. I suspect that he said that in his interrogation at some point, as otherwise the Perugian police going for that knife is just inexplicable. As is their arresting him at all.

I think Raffaele might be proof positive that the last place you want to go to stoned on hash is a police station.

 

[Mary_H]

Thank you, Rose. I'll have to pick up a copy of that book.

I'm pleased to see a consensus developing here that Raf did indeed tell the police that he and Amanda did not spend the entire night together, as he had previously represented. I have no problem with him subsequently claiming to a magistrate, after his arrest, that his prior confession was untrue. I will point out in passing that, in his diary entry of 11-12, he seems to be waffling again.

As far as I know, there has always been a consensus that Raffaele communicated to the police in one way or another that there may have been a period of time when Amanda went out.

I don't buy into this business about fear of "calumnia" tying Amanda's tongue about the specific nature of the "hard evidence" she claims in her statement to have been intimidated with, or about police misconduct not alleged in her statements. In her trial, she wears out creation about the physical and psychological abuse retailed in her statements, but nothing else of a specific nature. We are left with yelling, cuffing on the back of the head a couple of times, accusations of lying and threats to have her transported to the Big House. That's just what she would say, isn't it?

Did Amanda know the specific nature of the "hard evidence?" Who says the police told her what it was?

In her trial, Amanda answers the questions that were put to her. If she wanted to lie, she could have embellished quite a bit more than she did.

So what's to understand, Kaosim? Raf got to worrying about the consequences of lying to the police, decided to "come clean," and promptly found himself cuffed and charged with murder. Little wonder that he (or his lawyer) quickly decided that he would be better off disavowing his confession that he had lied during the first several days of the investigation.

Except that he seems to have disavowed it before he met with a lawyer.

 

[Kaosium]

Thank you, Rose. I'll have to pick up a copy of that book.

I'm pleased to see a consensus developing here that Raf did indeed tell the police that he and Amanda did not spend the entire night together, as he had previously represented. I have no problem with him subsequently claiming to a magistrate, after his arrest, that his prior confession was untrue. I will point out in passing that, in his diary entry of 11-12, he seems to be waffling again.

I don't buy into this business about fear of "calumnia" tying Amanda's tongue about the specific nature of the "hard evidence" she claims in her statement to have been intimidated with, or about police misconduct not alleged in her statements. In her trial, she wears out creation about the physical and psychological abuse retailed in her statements, but nothing else of a specific nature. We are left with yelling, cuffing on the back of the head a couple of times, accusations of lying and threats to have her transported to the Big House. That's just what she would say, isn't it?

So what's to understand, Kaosim? Raf got to worrying about the consequences of lying to the police, decided to "come clean," and promptly found himself cuffed and charged with murder. Little wonder that he (or his lawyer) quickly decided that he would be better off disavowing his confession that he had lied during the first several days of the investigation.

So what are you getting at? Are you saying that the police didn't tell Amanda they had hard evidence of her at the scene, when they'd release that video claiming it's Amanda only to have it turn out to be Meredith; just one of the many things exposing the incompetence of their investigation?

The police thought they had evidence of both Patrick and Amanda being there, that's why they arrested them. It just turned out they misread the cell records and misidentified Amanda in the CCTV video.

As for Raffaele, why would he implicate himself in a murder by providing an alibi for the person the police suspected after he's been given the perfect way out? Raffaele could have been free and clear a long time ago if he'd just let Amanda twist in the wind.

 

[Malkmus]

We are left with yelling, cuffing on the back of the head a couple of times, accusations of lying and threats to have her transported to the Big House. That's just what she would say, isn't it?

You're leaving out the most crucial part of Amanda's "confession": The police insisting she was traumatized - that being the reason she couldn't remember meeting Patrick - and subsequently asking her to imagine being present at the cottage that night. It was the result of this request that Amanda incriminated herself. In her letter later that day she asks the police not to use those statements against Patrick as they seem "unreal".

 

[Mary_H]

...During extensive cross examination (participated in by Raffaele's able counsel), Amanda does not so much as hint that she was confronted by falsified physical evidence by the police, or that Raf was seduced off the reservation by such representations. As earlier remarked, she does not even suggest that Raf's change in story was falsely represented to her, or vice versa...

Objections about things that were "not said" at trial are strange arguments to me. I think it's Machiavelli who often uses that approach to suggest that unless the defense attorneys explicitly pronounce they disagree with the prosecution on specific points, we should infer they agree.

Amanda was not in charge of the questions that were asked. If the attorneys didn't think of the most revealing questions, that's their fault, not hers. They also didn't ask her if she killed Meredith Kercher.

 

[nopoirot]

Thank you. It never occurred to me that Amanda was such a little mollusk that she didn't inquire about about the nature of this "hard evidence."

Confessing that you and your girl friend have been lying to the police for several days in a murder investigation represents a "way out"?

 

[nopoirot]

Ok, I get it. You're asking why Raf would have -initially- have dovetailed his story with Amanda's. Obviously, because he thought he could get away with it, and didn't anticipate (perhaps with good reason) that either of them would become suspects. Stranger things have happened under the influence of Eros.

 

[Mary_H]

Thank you. It never occurred to me that Amanda was such a little mollusk that she didn't inquire about about the nature of this "hard evidence."<snip>

It's hard to tell who you're responding to, nopoirot. If you click on "quote," it will give you a place in which to answer that specific post.

We don't know whether Amanda asked them what evidence they had. It is likely that if she did, they would not have told her, not only because they didn't have any but also because withholding information is an expression of power abuse. Given the imbalance of power inherent in the situation, however, it is reasonable to assume Amanda did not feel it was her place to ask questions.

 

[Malkmus]

It's hard to tell who you're responding to, nopoirot. If you click on "quote," it will give you a place in which to answer that specific post.

We don't know whether Amanda asked them what evidence they had. It is likely that if she did, they would not have told her, not only because they didn't have any but also because withholding information is an expression of power abuse. Given the imbalance of power inherent in the situation, however, it is reasonable to assume Amanda did not feel it was her place to ask questions.

All we know is:

The police have told me that they have hard evidence that places me at the house, my house, at the time of Meredith's murder. I don't know what proof they are talking about, but if this is true, it means I am very confused and my dreams must be real.

I'd go with your assertion that she didn't feel like she could ask.

 

[Kaosium]

Thank you. It never occurred to me that Amanda was such a little mollusk that she didn't inquire about about the nature of this "hard evidence."

Why would they tell her?

Confessing that you and your girl friend have been lying to the police for several days in a murder investigation represents a "way out"?

It's sure better than having them add you into their crazy theory!

Ok, I get it. You're asking why Raf would have -initially- have dovetailed his story with Amanda's. Obviously, because he thought he could get away with it, and didn't anticipate (perhaps with good reason) that either of them would become suspects. Stranger things have happened under the influence of Eros.

No, why didn't he stick with the lie he told at the police station if he was actually guilty? They didn't actually have anything at all on him until they went out and manufactured it 46 days later when another mindless error exposing their incompetence was aired on TV.

If they lose the bra clasp and the 'murder weapon'--like they should--do you think they'll even try to put either of them in that room in the appeal trial?

 

[capealadin]

I think everyone affiliated with the police who was at that interrogation should get much more than a year in jail for the way they got that 'admission' out of her, how they then tried to pretend it was an 'accusation,' and then used it to scapegoat her to cover up their egregious error of arresting Patrick.

Could you furnish proof, facts, as to what you claim?

 

[Kaosium]

Could you furnish proof, facts, as to what you claim?

The police arrested Patrick, right? They 'blamed' a twenty year-old girl they'd been interrogating all week, right? They told her a bunch of mistaken information and got her to 'vaguely remember' a bunch of things that 'matched' what they 'knew' but it just so happened it all turned out to be false, do you suppose that is a coincidence? She just 'happened' to make up things that were exactly what they 'thought' occurred? None of which actually did, you'll note even the prosecution eventually agreed when they made their case. Nothing from the thrown-out confession turned out to be in the trial, did it? So what did it 'match?'

The police are responsible for evaluating the information they get from interrogations. They are also responsible for who they arrest. If the girl they're putting the screws to starts babbling about 'flashes' when they start cuffing her to get to her 'repressed memories' somebody needs to say 'whoa, I think we freaked the chick out.' This didn't happen, and they don't just get to blame the girl. Especially when the girl obviously doesn't think she's 'accusing' anyone of anything. She wasn't, she was answering their questions, temporarily believing what they told her must have happened, probably trying to square it somehow in her mind.

Here's why they probably arrested Amanda Knox, their 'hard evidence.' Follow the link and read through the article and note that the police have just about everything wrong. They were wrong about Patrick Lumumba, they were wrong about Amanda Knox, and they were wrong about Raffaele Sollecito. Why do you suppose they said they 'forgot' to tape this interrogation?



"Amanda Knox, the American student who claims that she was not even present when her British roommate, Meredith Kercher, was murdered, was caught on closed-circuit television entering the house on the evening of the crime.

Police in the Italian city of Perugia said that the image was "clear cut," and flatly contradicted Knox's latest version of events, in which she reverted to her original assertion that she had spent the night of the murder with her Italian boyfriend, Raffaele Sollecito, and was not at the whitewashed cottage she shared with Kercher and two Italian female students."


Read more: http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,310637,00.html#ixzz19GoJswTR

 

[Beerina]

Relevant pages Matteini report:[qimg]http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/imagehosting/thum_383964d17b716adae2.jpg[/qimg]

[qimg]http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/imagehosting/thum_383964d17b7b1a656d.jpg[/qimg]

Those are in Italian. No wonder nobody here knows what's going on!

 

[nopoirot]

I've stated, as clearly as I know how, that I do not think either Amanda or Raffaele are guilty as charged (the "calumnia" bit aside.)

Where were we? Oh, yes, Amanda, finding herself reduced to victim status in a threatening, patriarchal setting, was made to feel that her place was to do as she was told. And Raf? He was pulled behind closed doors and, with Amanda still cartwheeling in the waiting area, is informed that "hard evidence" placing her at the scene has been discovered, and she has confessed to being there. Raf, whether through panic or anger, starts babbling that he really has no idea where Amanda was at the time in question. So then the police start on Amanda, discover the cell phone contact with Lumumba, pull their "hard evidence" card from their sleeve, and hit her with Raf's "astonishing" confession. And not a hint of these rogue tactics comes to light in Amanda's grueling cross-examination. Perhaps I'd better stop right here.