Continuation - Discussion of the Amanda Knox case

[Onofarar]

The movies have in fact managed to make it out of the USA and the name of the family in them is "Focker", not "Foaker".

My mistake Matthew thanks for pointing it out. Getting too old to trust my memory. Otherwise, Phonetically I stand by my original post.

 

[Chris C]

There is a meme that Rudy is protecting his true accomplice or the true killer. He wouldn't want to be the one who got it tested in that case either.

I have often wondered if Rudy did have an accomplice. Early on, Rudy made claims that Meredith might have been raped by another man. However, because he made this claim without a lawyer present it wasn't pursued.

 

[Chris C]

Since Kestrel's post has been quoted, I ask again, is there any actual, decent evidence that Mignini ever described the murder as having been committed by a cult, Satanic or otherwise?

I believe he told the court something along the lines of:

“was premeditated and was in addition a ‘rite’ celebrated on the occasion of the night of Hallowe’en. A sexual and sacrificial rite ... In the intention of the organisers, the rite should have occurred 24 hours earlier” – on Hallowe’en itself – “but on account of a dinner at the house of horrors, organised by Meredith and Amanda’s Italian flatmates, it was postponed for one day. The presumed assassins contented themselves with the evening of 1 November to perform their do-it-yourself rite, when for some hours it would again be the night of All Saints.”

 

[Onofarar]

What about the European Court of Human Rights?

IIRC the two appeals would need to be exhausted first and then the case, if the result is still guilty, could be taken to Strasburg (ECHR) but I think the prison term would be over before a ruling could be made - hence a mute point and an expensive one at that.
If AK could recover / receive a financial compensation reward from an ECHR ruling then it might still make sense to appeal to the ECHR - but it would not be free - cost might exceed recovery potential.

 

[Mary_H]

Thank you, Mary-H. I was wondering about that. So Sollecito's confession that Amanda had indeed gone to Le Chic that night is in the record, due to his legal team's untimely attempt to suppress it. I'll have to study on the proposition that, on a "philosophical" level, we must disregard it on the basis of his claim that he was denied an attorney.

You seem not to have read my post carefully. I separated the "fact" of Raffaele having been denied an attorney from the "philosophical" questions of the police lying to and withholding information from Raffaele, since it has been made clear in this forum that posters are of at least two minds about those issues. We can use the word "ethical" if that works more efficiently for you than "philosophical," when talking about certain non-factual issues that are debatable.

In the meanwhile, I'll point out that the "psychological torture" of which he complains in his diary is described as being stripped, cuffed, and relieved of his shoes. And he was afraid to aver, even to his own diary, "They told me Amanda was there that night"? Or even "Gee, they got me all confused"?

The quote from the PMF translation is, "In police headquarters they tortured to me psychologically, put to me in shackles and made me strip in front of the scientific,..." My interpretation is that the psychological torture he talks about may be something separate from and in addition to the cuffing and stripping.

Your characterization, "even to his own diary," is misleading. We have all read his diary; it was published in the international media. It is more than likely he was aware of the potential for dissemination when he wrote it.

It takes a bit of analysis to recognize that Raffaele did write about what the police said to him about Amanda. Every piece of information he writes about Amanda's possible role in the crime came from the police, for example, "All this makes me totally lose faith in Amanda after she continues to lie ..." We can deduce this from the fact that once they were interrogated, Amanda and Raffaele had no communication with each other whatsoever.

And Amanda feared to say, during her lengthy examination, that the change in Raf's account of the facts which so "astonished" her had been procured by representing evidence placing her at the scene had come to light?

You keep bringing up this reference to Amanda being astonished, but so far I don't think you have been clear about the point you're making about it. Is there more to it than her just describing how she felt when the police told her what Raffaele said?

Putting the philosophical dimension aside, is it conceded that there is now no way, unless Raf takes the stand, of proposing to the court that his confession was "coerced," or even the result of "confusion"? Do you suppose they could put an expert on the stand to explain that he had been suffering from IFMS (Internalized False Memory Syndrome)?

In the post you are responding to, I brought up four reasons why I do not concede that Raffaele's statement to the police was not coerced. You have reflected on the two factual ones (about the right to an attorney and the psychological torture), but not on the other two, which I characterized as philosophical (or ethical). Maybe we could discuss those at more length before you simply repeat your original question, as if no one had taken the time to answer it already.

http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=6698892&postcount=23154

 

[quadraginta]

Since Kestrel's post has been quoted, I ask again, is there any actual, decent evidence that Mignini ever described the murder as having been committed by a cult, Satanic or otherwise?

Does the whole Satanism thing simply derive from this single quote:

http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2008/10/20/world/main4531537.shtml

It wouldn't surprise me at all, or perhaps CBS was parroting the same mistake generated from some other equally overenthusiastic single source. This sort of repetition and magnification of error has become distressingly common as investigative journalism is replaced with news presentation.

Many moons ago, before she bowed out in frustration and disgust, Fiona offered this rather comprehensive summary of the entire sordid misrepresentation. I hope she doesn't mind my bumping it up for the edification of the new folks.

The "Monster of Florence" case has nothing to do with this one. I have been doing a bit of digging around tonight and it seems that it is at least as complex as the one we are discussing and it is surrounded with a load of misinformation and dubious reporting too. I am not prepared to go into that in depth but I will say a few things about what I have found, as it relates to this thread.

I can find no evidence that Spezi was charged with murder at any stage. He appears to have been charged with obstructing an investigation; perhaps with planting evidence; maybe with calumny; maybe with withholding evidence. I cannot find the charge sheet. There is plenty of stuff in Italian: not so much in english. It may be that if we have any Italian speakers they will have more success

Spezi has indeed been "obsessed" with the case for 25 years or so. He wrote a book about it in 1983 which, unfortunately for him, was not hugely successful: unlike Thomas Harris's book Hannibal which was apparently based in part on the same case. There is no doubt that he was very knowledgeable about those murders and he was very keen indeed to solve them. Those of us who have participated in this thread may have some small inkling of how that could happen

Far from being the voice of reason in this case Spezi seems to have believed early on that the murders arose from a rather bizarre "mafia type" operation involving Sardinians who lived in the area. There is a very strange story about what seemed to be the first kiliing (I think it was 1974) whereby this group of Sardinians, who allegedly indulged in unorthodox sexual practices including the sharing of the first female victim, became enraged when she had an affair with a Sicilian (not part of their group). Supposedly she and her lover were killed for this: and someone within that group inherited the gun and went on to kill the rest, presumably because he was bonkers in a different way. It should be noted that this gun has a distinctive flaw and has been used in all of the murders. Both Spezi and the police seem to have entertained this theory and Spezi continues to subscribe to it, so far as I can tell

Guitarri, one of the police officers involved was equally obsessed, it seems. As well as being a policeman he is also a best selling author, and he also had a book about this case. There is some evidence that he did indeed believe that there was a conspiracy of some sort involving respectable and powerful members of Florentine society. I do not know when he came to that conclusion and I do not know whether he seriously believed the motive was satanic. It would appear that he did think there was some ritualistic element.

So you pays your money and you takes your choice: Sardinian sex maniacs or Florentine satanists.

To me it is astonishing either way: but then I have no idea how Italians might view such notions. It appears that the satanic theory was also entertained by a firm of french private investigators employed by the family of the last victims (who were French) and also by the Italian secret service (neither of which claims I have found independent verification for: only one article I read mentions this).

What I do seem to see is two men who were both obsessed with a case which has all the appeal of Jack the Ripper (and we have seen the flights of fancy that has generated over the years) and both of whom were writers. Make of that what you will

The murders had stopped around 1985 and the police had no clues at all. In 1993 for reasons which are not clear to me they focussed on a suspect called Pacciano, an illiterate man who had served time for murder and was released in 1968. Coincidentally the year of the first monster killing. He had also been jailed in 1987 and 1991 for domestic violence and incest rape. Apparently he had told people he participated in satanic masses presided over by a doctor: whether this was the origin of Guittari's theory I do not know: but Guittari apparently did not believe Pacciano was smart enough to have planned the monster's crimes. At any rate, he was charged and convicted but there was no real evidence and his conviction did not stand. This whole episode is not to anyone's credit but it did give us Hannibal Lector, apparently. Two other men associated with Pacciano were later convicted and jailed: and that was where things stood in 1998. Pacciano himself died of a drug cocktail, bizarrely, before what would have been a retrial

I do not know what led to the re-opening of the investigation in 2004 but I think it was to do with the events surrounding Francesco Narducci. He was a Perugian gastroenterologist who was drowned in 1985 in odd circumstances. Orginally his death was presumed to be accidental (or a suicide) but in 1985 there was a protection racket in Perugia and some of the victims were threatened that they would meet the same fate as he did. So his death was reinvestigated at the instigation of a Florentine police official called Canessa and his body was exhumed. The forensic investigators said he had been strangled and from there it was hypothesised there was a connection with the monster killings: as the killer (because the murders stopped around the time of his death) or as part of the presumed group who organised the killings. At this time some further investigations into fresh suspects was undertaken and I am not sure how those people came under suspicion.

However that may be Mignini was asked to take the lead into the investigation of Narducci's death and that is how he became involved.

I can find absolutely nothing which suggests that Mignini subscribed to the Satanist theory which seems to have been in Guitarri's mind: but it seems to be true that Guitarri believed his investigation was being blocked. He presumably thought it was because powerful people were somehow involved. I have not been able to discover what Mignini thought but his focus appears to have been on police officers and journalists whom he thought were not helping.

Meantime Spezi pursued his own line of investigation/ research entirely at odds with the line the police were pursuing. And into this mess, in 2000, waltzed Douglas Preston, another writer. He wanted to write a thriller set in Florence and he was put in touch with Spezi as someone who could help with details about how the Italian justice system works. I have no idea why Preston decided to get involved with Spezi's agenda but he just impresses as hopelessly naive. I imagine the excitement got to him or somthing. In any case he and Spezi pursued this and they believed they had found the killer. I can imagine it is extremely difficult to decide when one should go to the police in these circumstance and there was no love lost between Spezi and Guittari. Nevertheless their behaviour seems at best reckless. Interviewing a man whom you believe to be a serial killer goes beyond journalistic zeal and is downright irresponsible in a foreigner newly arrived in the counry and with no prior knowledge of the case at all. It is "Boy's Own" stuff to my way of thinking. To continue after that interview (in which their putative killer allegedly threatened them ) on the word of an ex-convict who claimed to know where the gun was, and to go there, is insane. Yet when they get there the villa is closed for lunch so they dont get to look around? Go figure.

Preston claims that Guitarri suspected Spezi of complicity in the murders: he may well have done. He thought there was a conspiracy of respectable folk (however odd that is in itself). But he would also be aware of Spezi digging about and I do not know if he had an interest in this "villa"; or of the role of this "ex-convict" who was so intimate with a monster who had not been in jail.

What I am sure of is that the police were suspicous of Spezi and Preston in terms of obstructing/ misdirecting the investigation. And so they tapped Spezi's phone

Whatever Mignini's view of Guitarri's theory it seems likley to me that he thought Spezi was obstructive and Preston was an idiot. I think he had grounds for that belief. So on what I have been able to discover so far I am very willing to believe that he brought Preston to an appreciation that this was not a game: and he seems to have succeeded.

There is nothing to suggest he believed in satanic rites: or that he falsified evidence. Spezi has not succeeded in making a case for wrongful imprisonment. We will see what happens about the phone tapping charges on appeal. But on the basis of what I have learned I am not about to take either Spezi or Preston seriously.

In addition to the link I provided above and which I give again here:

http://www.thedailybeast.com/blogs-a...ld-save-her/2/

This interview with Preston and Spezi is instructive, I think. See what you make of it

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/19333195...rime_reports//

Many thanks once again, Fiona, for all your hard work.

 

[Justinian2]

Actually, Justinian, I think we are looking at a photo of two cops. The one in the reflective jacket is about to open the door to the building, and the other one is aiming at the door. Both have guns. Telephoto lenses always foreshorten distances -- the men actually may be standing ten feet apart.

Excellent deduction! However, how could someone lock themselves in with the padlock on the outside?

By the way, what did you think of idea that Guede used something like a chin-up bar to aid his entry into the house after he had broken and opened the window?

 

[nopoirot]

What the defense really needs if for a couple of credible witnesses to step forward and say they saw the cops whaling away with rubber truncheons on Raf's backside.

If this erudite panel can think of no way, short of putting Raf on the stand, to argue to the court that Raf's admission that Amanda had indeed gone to Le Chic that night was somehow improperly procured, who am I to propose otherwise? Where do we suppose the prosecution will go with this?

Don't tell me, Mary, that this weighty colloquy has been taking place on a purely "philosophical," as opposed to "evidentiary" plane.

 

[Justinian2]

Actually, Justinian, I think we are looking at a photo of two cops. The one in the reflective jacket is about to open the door to the building, and the other one is aiming at the door. Both have guns. Telephoto lenses always foreshorten distances -- the men actually may be standing ten feet apart.

I think he was closer than ten feet if you study the shadows. The light makes a 30 degree angle and the shadow of the gun has dropped 4 feet. That would make the distance about seven feet!

With your great deductive powers, what do you think about Guede using something like this chin up bar to help gain entry into the room after he broke and opened the window?

http://www.beachbody.com/images/en_US/products/gear/chinupbar/chinupbar_lg_alt02.jpg

Not much mention of the tools Guede used to access the 2nd floor!

 

[katy_did]

To make this as simple as I know how, how do you propose to get before the court the notion that Raf's damaging admissions were the result of duress or guile?

I don't suppose you could point me to the section in the Massei report that deals with Raffaele's statement from 5/6 November, could you? Presumably Massei must have used it as grounds for the conviction in some way, otherwise there'd be no need for the defence to bring it up in Court at all. I did have a quick look but the discussion in the report seems focused on Amanda's statements - perhaps I've missed the reference to Raffaele's.

 

[shuttlt]

I don't know who first leaked/claimed/said that the murder was some kind of satanic or Halloween rite but I first heard it said on NBC national news on the 6th or 7th of November 2007 when the case went international because an American student was involved. It was stated as coming from the police/prosecutors. The garbled statements that Amanda gave were also mentioned along with her written "gift". I thought the whole thing sounded rather garbled and incredulous right from this point in time. I've never changed my mind.

I've had a quick look on Google for "satanic" AND "kercher" and "satanic" AND "knox" and also "satanic" AND "mignini" restricting the dates to November 2007 without success. The time restriction function isn't great, but I'm struggling to find anything. My recollection of the story in the UK is that an orgy, or sexual encounter gone wrong was mentioned, but nothing about Satanism.

Here is a fairly typical article:
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/world/europe/article2821154.ece

 

[Mary_H]

What the defense really needs if for a couple of credible witnesses to step forward and say they saw the cops whaling away with rubber truncheons on Raf's backside.

If this erudite panel can think of no way, short of putting Raf on the stand, to argue to the court that Raf's admission that Amanda had indeed gone to Le Chic that night was somehow improperly procured, who am I to propose otherwise? Where do we suppose the prosecution will go with this?

Don't tell me, Mary, that this weighty colloquy has been taking place on a purely "philosophical," as opposed to "evidentiary" plane.

The case certainly can be discussed on a purely evidentiary plane; I'm sure many of us would prefer that. Subjective questions such as, "Does withholding information from the suspect amount to coercion?" can be more fun, however, and seem to be what keep many people sticking around.

I don't know if you're aware of this, but the question of whether Raffaele's interrogation was coercive has never been one to loom large in the debate. It's kind of irrelevant, since we don't know what he said and since it's not being used against him as Amanda's has been used against her.

 

[shuttlt]

shuttlt,

You have yet to comment on Ms. Nadeau's report on Mignini's closing remarks that two commenters (myself and RWVBWL) have mentioned.

Apologies. I have no recollection of the posts. I will look back.

 

[shuttlt]

Didn't you just argue that another case Mignini prosecuted really was about Satanists? In your rather strongly worded statement above, are you distinguishing this case from that, or are you belittling Mignini and the Italians who believed him, or what?

Clearly there are cases involving actual cults and people one might reasonably actually describe as Satanists. Given the right evidence I don't think someone would be stupid or insane for entertaining this theory. I don't see in this case that there is any evidence to warrant thoughts of Satanists, or cultists. If the prosecutor really did think cultists were involved I would be very curious to hear his reasons.

 

[Mary_H]

I think he was closer than ten feet if you study the shadows. The light makes a 30 degree angle and the shadow of the gun has dropped 4 feet. That would make the distance about seven feet!

With your great deductive powers, what do you think about Guede using something like this chin up bar to help gain entry into the room after he broke and opened the window?

http://www.beachbody.com/images/en_US/products/gear/chinupbar/chinupbar_lg_alt02.jpg

Not much mention of the tools Guede used to access the 2nd floor!

Do you mean he might have brought it with him? Hmmm (as RWVBWL would say).

I have always thought Rudy went in the front door, although I don't think it's impossible he went in through the window. Not with any high-end accessories, though.

 

[LondonJohn]

I've had a quick look on Google for "satanic" AND "kercher" and "satanic" AND "knox" and also "satanic" AND "mignini" restricting the dates to November 2007 without success. The time restriction function isn't great, but I'm struggling to find anything. My recollection of the story in the UK is that an orgy, or sexual encounter gone wrong was mentioned, but nothing about Satanism.

Here is a fairly typical article:
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/world/europe/article2821154.ece

Why have you restricted the dates to just that one month?

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/uk/crime/article4968044.ece

http://news.scotsman.com/latestnews/Kercher-slaying-was-part-of.4606860.jp

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/w...r-in-neck-as-part-of-satanic-rite-966242.html

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/wor...elic-student-orchestrated-satanic-murder.html

 

[Mary_H]

I've had a quick look on Google for "satanic" AND "kercher" and "satanic" AND "knox" and also "satanic" AND "mignini" restricting the dates to November 2007 without success. The time restriction function isn't great, but I'm struggling to find anything. My recollection of the story in the UK is that an orgy, or sexual encounter gone wrong was mentioned, but nothing about Satanism.

Here is a fairly typical article:
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/world/europe/article2821154.ece

Here is one from a year after the murder, in which Sollecito's lawyer, Luca Maori, claims the prosecution made a case for a Satanic ritual:

From The Sunday Times
October 19, 2008
Amanda Knox ‘stabbed Meredith Kercher to death in satanic ritual’
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/uk/crime/article4968044.ece

It would be helpful if we had transcripts of the prosecutor's actual case.

 

[Chris C]

I've had a quick look on Google for "satanic" AND "kercher" and "satanic" AND "knox" and also "satanic" AND "mignini" restricting the dates to November 2007 without success. The time restriction function isn't great, but I'm struggling to find anything. My recollection of the story in the UK is that an orgy, or sexual encounter gone wrong was mentioned, but nothing about Satanism.

Here is a fairly typical article:
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/world/europe/article2821154.ece

Why are you restricting the dates only to Nov 2007?

 

[Kaosium]

What the defense really needs if for a couple of credible witnesses to step forward and say they saw the cops whaling away with rubber truncheons on Raf's backside.

If this erudite panel can think of no way, short of putting Raf on the stand, to argue to the court that Raf's admission that Amanda had indeed gone to Le Chic that night was somehow improperly procured, who am I to propose otherwise? Where do we suppose the prosecution will go with this?

Don't tell me, Mary, that this weighty colloquy has been taking place on a purely "philosophical," as opposed to "evidentiary" plane.

They'll go absolutely nowhere with it, why would the prosecution want to remind people of how they produced 'evidence' of Patrick Lumumba's complicity in this crime?

 

[nopoirot]

You told them WHAT?

Well, you remember when we talked on the phone, you said I should just tell the truth.

I told you to say that you had been lying to the police? (fingertips to forehead) Let me think. And the girl, what is she saying?

I'm pretty sure she's saying she was with me all night.

Raffaele, my child, I have ethical obligations here. I can't tell you what to say, but it would have been so much better if you hadn't changed your story.

Really? You know, I've been having a lot of trouble remembering things lately. I just can't seem to focus. Everything is so hazy. So much pressure. Now that I've had more time to think on it, though, it seems to me that she was with me all night.

(Sternly) Are you sure?

Absolutely.