Continuation Part 2 - Discussion of the Amanda Knox case

[Kaosium]

Sorry, but thats makes no sense at all, except to a FOAK'er I suppose, why would Raff feel any different than his father felt if he were innocent - no sense at all. Raff thinks he's being railroaded, but his dad does not? This case is a lot simpler than some of you may think. If Raff were innocent, there would be no better news than what he just received, the real killer has been caught...... If he is guilty, he knows it and he should fear what the other killer may say. Period....

Unless of course the other guy lies and tries to blame Raffaele. You're assuming Raffaele will have absolute faith in the trustworthiness of rapist-murderers. Maybe Raffaele has a nasty suspicious mind too, and he wonders if the guy they caught may try to pin it on the two the clueless cops already arrested. I'm sure it crossed his mind that Rudy might just fess up and solve all his problems, but I guess he was worried about the possibility that Rudy might just use him to solve all of Rudy's own problems.

His Dad might just be keeping up a brave front for the benefit of his family and to cheer up his son.

 

[Chris_Halkides]

different viewpoints

Sorry, but thats makes no sense at all, except to a FOAK'er I suppose, why would Raff feel any different than his father felt if he were innocent - no sense at all. Raff thinks he's being railroaded, but his dad does not? This case is a lot simpler than some of you may think. If Raff were innocent, there would be no better news than what he just received, the real killer has been caught...... If he is guilty, he knows it and he should fear what the other killer may say. Period....

Sherlock Holmes,

I respectfully submit that Raffaele's interrogation and incarceration would give him a different perspective from his father's. Then, too, his father may have privately had concerns that he did not share with others. MOO.

 

[Dan O.]

For two weeks, Raffaele has been in the news as the guilty suspect. Now they caught someone that is known to have been in the room around the time that Meredith was killed

http://www.mirror.co.uk/news/top-stories/2007/11/19/meredith-fourth-suspect-named-115875-20126273/
Forensic work on a bloody fingerprint found on Miss Kercher's pillow led police to Ermann, who is believed to have left for Milan after she died.
​

Meanwhile they've been saying they have enough solid evidence to continue to hold Raffaele in jail for those last two weeks. An innocent Raffaele knows the cops are making crap up. He knows that bloody shoe print in Meredith's room isn't his. He knows the knife found in his home with Meredith's DNA on the blade cannot be the murder weapon. Raffaele doesn't know who Rudy is, has never even seen Rudy's picture. But by this time, Rudy knows all about Raffaele. If Rudy can come up with a fancy statement that makes himself look innocent and confirms what the cops already know about Amanda and Raffaele he might be able to wiggle out of the mess.

What if Rudy were to tell the cops that he had arranged a date with Meredith and that while he was in the bathroom or something some curly haired italian stranger killed Meredith and he only tried to help her but then got scared and ran. It might have worked. Offering enough information for the cops the fill in their own details but not providing everything up front which would make it look like a planned tale. If the cops were not so eager to fill the void left in their theory by Patrick's release he might have been able to get away with it.

 

[CoulsdonUK]

Sherlock Holmes,

I respectfully submit that Raffaele's interrogation and incarceration would give him a different perspective from his father's. Then, too, his father may have privately had concerns that he did not share with others. MOO.

So basically Raffaele was concerned or feared what someone he had never met would “say strange” things to the police and the police would believe an effectively African immigrant over a middle class Italian university student, not only that but someone who had fled Perugia shortly after Meredith murder.

 

[Sherlock Holmes]

I would argue that not only was it in Guede's self-interest to lie and to implicate RS and AK, but that it was in his character. He was not a guy who could take responsibility and had already demonstrated his desire to get away with what he'd done scot-free, by leaving the country. Raff knew both of these things when he made the statement in his diary.
And what do you think the 'rational' way would be for Raffaele to respond to Guede's arrest at this point, if we made the assumption that Raff is guilty?

If Raff were guilty, he would have said exactly what he did say, no question, that is why it is so incriminating. Guede may lie or not, if Raff is innocent, then he has no idea about who or what this Guede guy is or what he may say, but he should be happy like his father was because now they have someone else to blame.

 

[Chris_Halkides]

So basically Raffaele was concerned or feared what someone he had never met would “say strange” things to the police and the police would believe an effectively African immigrant over a middle class Italian university student, not only that but someone who had fled Perugia shortly after Meredith murder.

CoulsdonUK,

No, that is not even close to what I said or meant. I do think it is worth pointing out the police, in great likelyhood, had Raffaele in mind as a suspect before they brought him in on 5 November. In other words, they did not believe what he first told them. He might have feared that the police would not believe him still, and it is clear that he found his arrest and incarceration to be traumatic. As for Rudi, I think he had been in Italy since he was five years old, so it is not as if he were a stranger in Perugia. MOO.

 

[Chris_Halkides]

keeping one's thoughts to oneself.

If Raff were guilty, he would have said exactly what he did say, no question, that is why it is so incriminating. Guede may lie or not, if Raff is innocent, then he has no idea about who or what this Guede guy is or what he may say, but he should be happy like his father was because now they have someone else to blame.

Sherlock Holmes,

If Raffaele were guilty, he might have worried about what Guede might say, but he would have kept thoughts to himself. If Raffaele were innocent, he might well wonder what Guede would say to point the blame elsewhere. As another commenter pointed out, Guede knew more about Raffaele than vice versa. MOO.

 

[Danceme]

I would argue that not only was it in Guede's self-interest to lie and to implicate RS and AK, but that it was in his character. He was not a guy who could take responsibility and had already demonstrated his desire to get away with what he'd done scot-free, by leaving the country. Raff knew both of these things when he made the statement in his diary.
And what do you think the 'rational' way would be for Raffaele to respond to Guede's arrest at this point, if we made the assumption that Raff is guilty?

I agree with you there. Rudy certainly did try to minimize his role by inventing the story of a planned date and an effort to help a dying Meredith. Perhaps he really did think he would be believed. On the other hand, he was willingly preparing to return to Perugia to face the music so it appears before he was caught by the German authorities although that doesn't diminish in any way his lies and actions.

I think the rational way for Raffaele to respond would have been to express relief the real murderer was finally caught. Here was Rudy, unemployed, black, a drifter, caught while on the run, a polar opposite of himself, the very upstanding young son of a prominent Urologist preparing to graduate from university. Even with the shoe print and the knife he surely would have been hopeful this horrible misunderstanding would soon be cleared up with Rudy's arrest. If on the other hand he already knew Rudy had been there that night and Rudy knew Raffaele was too, he would be afraid, as he wrote he was IMO.

 

[Sherlock Holmes]

On one hand we have folk-psychological guesswork from someone who wasn't there, doesn't know the people involved and does not have mind reading powers.

On the other hand we have hard evidence in the form of the autopsy data and computer records that show that there was human activity on Raffaele's computer before, during and after the time when Meredith was murdered.

You may think you have mind-reading super-powers such that you can make the whole case "a lot simpler than some of you may think" by applying folk-psychological guesswork based on second-or-third-hand reports of the people involved and their situations.

However rational people are going to believe that the laws of physics followed their usual course on the night Meredith was murdered.

It sounds to me as if the person you are really trying to convince is yourself. Can you really not even imagine the possibility that Raffaele took a more pessimistic view of the situation than his father just because he was in prison and that tends to make people feel negative? Can you absolutely rule out the possibility that because Raffaele is not a clone of his father he might form different opinions based on the same data?

And no doubt you have these mind reading powers, perhaps all FOAKer's have them, I don't know, I'm not a FOAKer by any stretch, and I concede that you guys (and girls) may actually be right, though really highly unlikely, but common sense says 'NO - they are Guilty to some degree'.

Honestly, I would really like to know how many FOAKer's actually believe that they are guilty and are here just to argue because looking at all the facts of this case and how you guys (and girls) have to twist and distort so many of them to have it work into their favour is really unbelievable. Also, I really do not believe even the parents deep down inside believe they are innocent, and they have a lot more information on this crime than all you guys combined.

 

[Sherlock Holmes]

Sherlock Holmes,

If Raffaele were guilty, he might have worried about what Guede might say, but he would have kept thoughts to himself. If Raffaele were innocent, he might well wonder what Guede would say to point the blame elsewhere. As another commenter pointed out, Guede knew more about Raffaele than vice versa.

Guede knowing more about Raff has nothing to do with anything, when Raff writes in his diary, Rudy has said nothing at all about Amanda or Raff and if he did, it was that they were not involved if I remember correctly.

 

[Antony]

Guede knowing more about Raff has nothing to do with anything, when Raff writes in his diary, Rudy has said nothing at all about Amanda or Raff and if he did, it was that they were not involved if I remember correctly.

If Guede was saying that at the time he was arrested, it's one of the strongest indications that Amanda and Raffaele had nothing to do with the murder.

But no, that's not important when you are a true believer in their guilt: what's important is that Raffaele was worrying about what he would be saying. And of course, Raffaele couldn't be in ignorance of whether Guede had implicated them or not. The thinking is: Raffaele is guilty - so he knows what Guede would be saying. It's all circular.

 

[Antony]

Honestly, I would really like to know how many FOAKer's actually believe that they are guilty and are here just to argue because looking at all the facts of this case and how you guys (and girls) have to twist and distort so many of them to have it work into their favour is really unbelievable.

It's truly baffling that someone can talk about "the facts of this case" in this completely inverted way. I can only suppose that the "facts" referred to are everything the Perugia police have claimed about the events of the murder and the investigation, no matter how implausible or downright contradictory.

So to discredit Amanda and Raffaele it only takes a few smear stories, fed to a friendly news media eager for sensation; while no amount of demonstrable falsehood, incompetence and dirty tricks will ever be enough to discredit the Perugia authorities in the eyes of their faithful supporters.

 

[Justinian2]

It's lucky that Amanda didn't leave fingerprints in the room of the murder. Then she would have been in trouble even in a good court with good prosecurtors and police.

It's lucky that Amanda didn't have a relationship with Guede. Then she would have been in trouble even in a good court with good prosecurtors and police.

 

[Chris C]

I agree with you there. Rudy certainly did try to minimize his role by inventing the story of a planned date and an effort to help a dying Meredith. Perhaps he really did think he would be believed. On the other hand, he was willingly preparing to return to Perugia to face the music so it appears before he was caught by the German authorities although that doesn't diminish in any way his lies and actions.

I think the rational way for Raffaele to respond would have been to express relief the real murderer was finally caught. Here was Rudy, unemployed, black, a drifter, caught while on the run, a polar opposite of himself, the very upstanding young son of a prominent Urologist preparing to graduate from university. Even with the shoe print and the knife he surely would have been hopeful this horrible misunderstanding would soon be cleared up with Rudy's arrest. If on the other hand he already knew Rudy had been there that night and Rudy knew Raffaele was too, he would be afraid, as he wrote he was IMO.

Are you trying to say that people that have been falsely accused don't get affraid? When they arrested Guede all they did was arrest a 4th person. Why would Sollecito suddenly not be afraid. He is already accused of committing the crime with Patrick and we know Patrick was innocent. Plus Sollecito already knows that evidence against him is false. Evidence that later would be proven to be false. So just because they arrest another person doesn't remove fear. Sollecito was still sitting in jail. If he was sitting at his house, drinking a cold one, he might lose some fear when Guede was arrested. However he wasn't. He was sitting in jail.

 

[Chris_Halkides]

Four

Are you trying to say that people that have been falsely accused don't get affraid? When they arrested Guede all they did was arrest a 4th person.

ChrisC,

These are good points. How would Raffaele know that the police would not charge all four people? MOO.

 

[Katody Matrass]

On one hand we have folk-psychological guesswork from someone who wasn't there, doesn't know the people involved and does not have mind reading powers.

On the other hand we have hard evidence in the form of the autopsy data and computer records that show that there was human activity on Raffaele's computer before, during and after the time when Meredith was murdered.

You may think you have mind-reading super-powers such that you can make the whole case "a lot simpler than some of you may think" by applying folk-psychological guesswork based on second-or-third-hand reports of the people involved and their situations.

However rational people are going to believe that the laws of physics followed their usual course on the night Meredith was murdered.

It sounds to me as if the person you are really trying to convince is yourself. Can you really not even imagine the possibility that Raffaele took a more pessimistic view of the situation than his father just because he was in prison and that tends to make people feel negative? Can you absolutely rule out the possibility that because Raffaele is not a clone of his father he might form different opinions based on the same data?

Well said.

I think so much emphasis on pseudo-psychological "statement analysis" and speculation and avoiding any discussion of the real evidence is indicative of the weakness of the case.

 

[Malkmus]

ChrisC,

These are good points. How would Raffaele know that the police would not charge all four people? MOO.

Exactly. When Rudy was caught ILE were simply convinced that there were more people involved:

Italian newspapers reported that blood and “organic substances” on tissues found in Ms Kercher’s bedroom and in the street outside are not from any of the three suspects currently being detained.

The DNA on the tissues belongs to “a male and a female”, reports said, implying that five people were suspected of involvement in killing Ms Kercher, who was found with her throat cut on the morning of November 2.

Sources have suggested that a group of people may have been at the cottage for an evening of sex and drugs.

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/world/europe/article2943423.ece

 

[Kevin_Lowe]

So basically Raffaele was concerned or feared what someone he had never met would “say strange” things to the police and the police would believe an effectively African immigrant over a middle class Italian university student, not only that but someone who had fled Perugia shortly after Meredith murder.

I think this is just the argument that "if they were convicted, they must have done it" being snuck back in under a blanket. You can explain literally any odd, incompetent or unprofessional behaviour by Mignini and the ILE by saying that if they did something so bizarre as that, they must surely have had an excellent reason which we do not know about.

Failing to drop the attempts to railroad Raffaele, Amanda and Patrick when they caught Guede might look like incompetence, malice or confirmation bias run amok, but with enough faith in the ILE you can just say that if they didn't drop the charges then, that means that obviously they must have had some really good, super-awesome, double-secret reason to keep them locked up.

It's just a pity we know about all the police's best evidence, and that the police just didn't have such a super-awesome, double-secret reason.

And no doubt you have these mind reading powers, perhaps all FOAKer's have them, I don't know, I'm not a FOAKer by any stretch, and I concede that you guys (and girls) may actually be right, though really highly unlikely, but common sense says 'NO - they are Guilty to some degree'.

I don't recall ever claiming to have mind reading powers. Perhaps you are projecting? I merely presented possible alternative explanations, which is enough since your argument depends upon the assumption that there are no such possible alternative explanations.

Honestly, I would really like to know how many FOAKer's actually believe that they are guilty and are here just to argue because looking at all the facts of this case and how you guys (and girls) have to twist and distort so many of them to have it work into their favour is really unbelievable. Also, I really do not believe even the parents deep down inside believe they are innocent, and they have a lot more information on this crime than all you guys combined.

As I suggested earlier, it does look like you are trying hard to convince yourself of your own pet theory, and now you're projecting that dissonant state on to us.

This argument is the intellectual equivalent of a panic room.

Curatolo has been sunk, Quintavalle has been sunk, Nara has been sunk, the footprint evidence has been sunk, the DNA evidence has been subjected to a battery of objections from relevant experts with international reputations, the DNA lab's procedures have been shown to be culpably substandard if not outright suspicious, Amanda and Raffaele's alibi has been backed up with electronic records of their activity and the sainted Massei's reasoning processes have been exposed as biased and absurd.

However there's still a panic room to run to! Get inside it and declare that you don't care about all that other stuff, Raffaele was too concerned about what stories Guede might make up to be innocent! You're safe now! With one swift bit of folk-psychological guesswork you've found proof beyond reasonable doubt once and for all, and all of that other pesky evidence can never get you again.

The problem is, it's not so much a panic room as a flimsy cardboard box with holes in it.

 

[odeed]

odeed,

Your reply is short on facts. In post #17336, you merely asked what Elio Bertoldi’s attendance at the press conference had to do with the detour the police took through the old town of Perugia. There is nothing in what you said to discount Bertoldi as a source. I clicked on the link you provided under “cameraman” and found nothing that was pertinent to the question of why the cameraman should not be trusted. Therefore, nothing you have written suggests that these two are not credible sources. Your present message makes an unsupported claim with respect to the whereabouts of the cameraman and Mr. Bertoldi. Do you have sources, or were you in Perugia at the time?

I have repeated before why I think the sources do not back up Dempsey's quote, I will add that for Elio Bertoldi you have yet to provide a link to what he said, so whatever you claim he saw is hearsay. I have never said the cameraman cannot be trusted, only that the few seconds of footage in front of the police station does not show the cars making a diversion through Perugia to the prison on that morning.

Now on to the issue of why I said that I surmised that the word “approach” should be changed to “leave” in one of the news accounts. At first you left the word “surmise” out of your quotation from my message # 17193. When called on that, you claimed that I was reaching for straws, but the actual explanation is much different. At the time I did not believe that the police would celebrate twice, once on bringing Patrick in, and once when pulling away from the police station with the three suspects. However, I am more willing now than before to acknowledge this possibility. If you had asked me for my reasons instead of making incorrect assumptions, we would not need to spend time disentangling your thinking.

Show evidence that the news article was incorrect, you do not change the words of news articles, whether you surmise it or not, in attempt to validate Dempsey's story.

But the most serious problem in this discussion is the fact that you are using double standards. Have you ever asked Ms. Nadeau or Ms. Vogt for their sources? We have documented a number of Ms. Nadeau’s errors here, and perhaps we should do the same for Ms. Vogt. Or do you only ask for sources when the facts make you uncomfortable?

This is irrelevant to what is being discussed, your assertions are baseless and not true, furthermore your final question is not even a honest question as you have already decided the answer in the title of the post.

Moreover, I asked you once for your version of events. In message 16078 you wrote, ““Yes, I believe the that Dempsey's story of Knox, Sollecito and Lumumba being paraded/driven around Perugia on the 6th November to be false.” However, you have yet to provide even one scintilla of evidence to back up that claim. I have given you a source for the story of the detour through the old town, Candace Dempsey. When you seemed to find this source insufficient, I brought up the cameraman and Elio Bertoldi, and you gave specious arguments in reply. If you cannot provide a source for your claim that the police did not take a detour through the old town, then the only honorable course for you is to make a retraction and a long-overdue apology to Ms. Dempsey.

Perhaps you do not understand the importance of providing evidence to back up your claims, and why it can be a ridiculous proposition to ask me to prove something did not happen. Implying that because I can not provide evidence that these events did not take place therefore Dempsey story is true, is just an appeal to ignorance.

 

[Chris_Halkides]

simple

odeed,

I am going to keep this simple. You claimed that the detour through the old town did not occur. I suggest you either back up your claim or withdraw it.