Continuation Part 2 - Discussion of the Amanda Knox case

[Rhea]

He wasn't being screamed at or threatened or even being nicely spoken to by the police when he told this lie. He saw a story on television about the knife and he decided to make up a lie to explain MK's DNA on it. No one forced this lie from him, he gave it freely.

No wonder his father and his lawyers have had him on permanent shut up since then.

I know he wasn't screamed at when he wrote the knife story; I separated the knife story from the other so called "repeated lies".

I argued about the knife story; him being scared and panicked alone in prison, hearing about the knife.

And I argued about the other so called "repeated lies"; that those were made under great duress, when the police pressured him. I personally wouldn't call some false statements somebody makes under these circumstances "lies", this could happen to anybody. It's a known pheomenon.

The knife story on the other hand is a possible lie. I'm not even certain about it, maybe he was confused, maybe it was a lie. And it's easily imaginable for me why an innocent person would make up a lie when panicked in this nightmarish situation …

So in the end it can just as easily be explained from an innocent perspective and since to me all the other evidence points to their innocence, the innocent explanation is therefore the logical explanation in my eyes.

 

[Alt+F4]

None of the reports are clear if the minute amount of DNA found was on the handle or the blade. Most of the reports I have seen imply that they could not confirm from this small amount that it was Amanda's DNA on the handle, not Meredith's DNA on the blade. I don't think they found anything on the blade. I don't believe Vogt is correct on this and she did not give a link to the Italian media source she got this from.

At this point it seems to be nothing other than unsourced gossip.

 

[Antony]

I wanted to take a moment to thank all of the intelligent and thoughtful posters here. It is very annoying to see mindless posts that are made just for the sake of arguing. Reading and improving my thought process has helped me tremendously in the way I view this case now as opposed to two years ago. I have learned how careful evaluation of information is critical to finding truth. Again many thanks to everyone at JREF.

I'll agree with that. JREF hasn't changed my view of the case, but it has backed up my instincts on it hugely. I knew the prosecution case made no sense at all, but understanding just how the accusations arose and what the rational explanation for them is, has made me much more confident about discussing it (even though I can't claim to be one of the more important contributors here).

 

[Antony]

There is an additional point of dispute that I have been discussing with Michael at PMF(net).

Does this mean that the .net site is open to people who don't sign up to their articles of faith?

 

[Chris_Halkides]

Billy Wayne Cope

To all,

PhantomWolf posted this link on false confessions, at a related thread. Author Saul Kassin discusses the case of Billy Wayne Cope. Mr. Cope gave a false confession to raping and murdering his daughter. When the DNA came back to implicate someone else, the prosecution changed its theory of the crime to be that Mr. Cope pimped out his daughter out to the perpetrator, Mr. Sanders. I'm not making this up.

When several of us were trying to explain our interest in the case in February, one of the commenters said that Ms. Knox’s parents had convinced people that this case was somehow special. That viewpoint struck me as wrong at the time, and it strikes me as more wrong now. The Knox/Sollecito case is a garden-variety* injustice. It can happen in South Carolina as easily as in Umbria. MOO.

*by calling it this, I do not intend to minimize that it has been a tragedy for the Kercher family and a nightmare for the Knox/Mellas families and the Sollecito family.

 

[Draca]

Toto still credible to prosecution. :/

"Prosecutor Manuela Comodi said the confusion between Oct. 31 and Nov. 1 is a moot point as it has already been ascertained that Knox was somewhere else -- in a pub where she worked -- on Oct. 31 and so could not have been seen in the square.

"What's certain is that she couldn't have been there on Halloween night," Comodi said. "There is no such thing as a perfect witness, save for one who has seen the crime. What matters is that a witness doesn't lie, and why should Curatolo lie?"

Francesco Maresca, a lawyer for the Kerchers who are civil plaintiffs in the case, told reporters that Curatolo was as reliable now as during the first trial. He noted that Curatolo said it was not raining when he saw Knox and Sollecito, which would confirm Nov. 1 since it wasn't raining that night but it had been raining on Oct. 31."

http://www.kirotv.com/news/27336759/detail.html


You know, it really find it outrageous that they don't just give it up. It seems Toto could NOT have been mistaking the night for Halloween because Amanda has an alibi for that night. doh ! What twisted logic is this? Surley he DID see them. Surely he has no reason to LIE. (or could have even been mistaken)

Could not have mixed up dates:
No rain on Halloween
Amanda had an alibi for that night

Could have mixed up dates:
DISCO buses
Lots of students
Masks and costumes
On heroin (although it is not a hallucinogen) :/
Came forward almost a year later

Professional witness ?

 

[HumanityBlues]

At this point it seems to be nothing other than unsourced gossip.

Ok, just assume for the moment its true. Now what?

 

[Rhea]

To all,

PhantomWolf posted this link on false confessions, at a related thread. Author Saul Kassin discusses the case of Billy Wayne Cope. Mr. Cope gave a false confession to raping and murdering his daughter. When the DNA came back to implicate someone else, the prosecution changed its theory of the crime to be that Mr. Cope pimped out his daughter out to the perpetrator, Mr. Sanders. I'm not making this up.

When several of us were trying to explain our interest in the case in February, one of the commenters said that Ms. Knox’s parents had convinced people that this case was somehow special. That viewpoint struck me as wrong at the time, and it strikes me as more wrong now. The Knox/Sollecito case is a garden-variety* injustice. It can happen in South Carolina as easily as in Umbria. MOO.

*by calling it this, I do not intend to minimize that it has been a tragedy for the Kercher family and a nightmare for the Knox/Mellas families and the Sollecito family.

This is really interesting. I'm just loosing hope that the guilt side will ever get it …

False or contradicting statements will always be irrefutable evidence of guilt for them, seems like nothing can ever change that … not various examples of the contrary, no statistics.

It's like Machiavelli claiming there is no possible innocent explanation for Raffaele's choice not to testify, even though it's common practice for innocent people not to testify, it's simply not accepted, naivety always prevails …

Innocent people don't lie, innocent people know exactly what they did at what time. Innocent people don't confuse anything. Innocent people always act innocent. Innocents have nothing to hide, therefore should testify in court.

 

[Rhea]

Perfect example of extreme naivety; Barbie Latza Nadeau in a talk with Ann Bremner;

http://www.mynorthwest.com/?nid=108&sid=311691

What are Nadeau's reasons to believe in Amanda and Raffaele's Guilt?

1. They have no credible alibi (unbelievable)
2. Mixed Blood, mixed DNA
3. She placed herself at the scene of the crime and accused an innocent man of the murder

It's interesting how she excludes the knife and bra-clasp now

 

[Draca]

Guilter Barbie

Perfect sample of extreme naivety; Barbie Latza Nadeau in a talk with Ann Bremner;

http://www.mynorthwest.com/?nid=108&sid=311691

What are Nadeau's reasons to believe in Amanda and Raffaele's Guilt?

1. They have no credible alibi (unbelievable)
2. Mixed Blood, mixed DNA
3. She placed herself at the scene of the crime and accused an innocent man of the murder

It's interesting how she excludes the knife and bra-clasp now

I had recently rewatched a Dateline special that had Barbie on it and she said the main reason they looked guilty to her was the false witness statement and accusation of Patrick Lumumba. She just didn't believe Amanda would have said that if she wasn't involved. She also said somewhere that the hand written Nov 6th note was a large reason the jury thought Amanda was guilty. Many people just do not believe that people give false confessions. This has probably been Amanda's largest hurdle with both the court and public opinion. In reality, experts have shown it is a very common occurrence and people can be talked into saying things under pressure.

Barbie also use to bring up 5 places with MK's blood through out the cottage. Not understanding that the luminol hits had tested negative with TMB.

The last I heard her say was in the 'Beyond the Headlines' lifetime documentary where she put a bizarre emphasis on the police arriving finding them ACTING GUITLY and with a MOP. To have someone who has been so involved in the case say that blew my mind. Did they act nervous and guilty? They were outside waiting and not surprised. And the MOP never tested positive for blood and there was no proof of a clean up. Why did she make this huge insinuation that they used the MOP. She as usual made me wish to scream at her. I find her the most illogical of all the commentators on this case.

 

[Antony]

Are you certain that Amanda's statement was ruled inadmissible by the Supreme Court because Amanda "misremembered" and was pressured by those mean, mean Italian cops.? I was under the impression that it was because no lawyer was present.

You're right: it was ruled inadmissible for technical reasons, not because it was a coerced statement. That doesn't alter the fact that the circumstances and nature of the Nov 5-6 statements are exactly those associated with abusive police interrogations. The press conference statement by Police Chief Arturo di Felice the next day ("she buckled and gave a version of events we knew to be correct") confirms that the details of Amanda's statement were fed to her by her interrogators.

I know this is probably difficult for you to comprehend... but could you provide some evidence that this is what happened?

What is there to comprehend, other than that guilters' stock reply is to demand "evidence" of conclusions they don't like, when they will never themselves provide evidence of their own assertions?

The answer is that Toto is now in jail, charged with drug offences dating back to 2004, and that in the time when the police had this handle on him he "helped" them with "evidence" in 3 separate murder cases.

 

[Alt+F4]

Ok, just assume for the moment its true. Now what?

I prefer to wait until May 21st and see what the experts actually testify to.

My question is, what happens after May 21st? Is that the end of the appeal?

 

[HumanityBlues]

I prefer to wait until May 21st and see what the experts actually testify to.

My question is, what happens after May 21st? Is that the end of the appeal?

That's fair.

I don't think anyone is really sure what happens after the 21st. I think it's up to the judge how to proceed.

 

[CoulsdonUK]

That's fair.

I don't think anyone is really sure what happens after the 21st. I think it's up to the judge how to proceed.

Have I got this right; Hellmann has so far appointed the geneticist (knife and Meredith’s bra clasp) and allowed defence witnesses who testified that “our” disco was closed and or “our” buses were not running the night Meredith was murdered, essentially to raise reasonable doubt with Mr Curatolo’s testimony and of course Mr Curatolo’s testimony on Saturday?

The appeal is adjourned until 21st May at which point the independent report will be submitted to the court?

In addition, does anyone have view regarding why Hellmann has not ruled on the rest of the evidence that is disputed in Raffaele and Amanda’s appeal submissions?

Has media (Pisa, Dempsey or Vogt for example) spoken to any members of the jury about their views of the appeal so far?

Has the media (Pisa, Dempsey or Vogt or others) spoken to either of the appeal judges?

Is the media regarded as reliable in the context of this case now?

 

[HumanityBlues]

Have I got this right; Hellmann has so far appointed the geneticist (knife and Meredith’s bra clasp) and allowed defence witnesses who testified that “our” disco was closed and or “our” buses were not running the night Meredith was murdered, essentially to raise reasonable doubt with Mr Curatolo’s testimony and of course Mr Curatolo’s testimony on Saturday?

The appeal is adjourned until 21st May at which point the independent report will be submitted to the court?

In addition, does anyone have view regarding why Hellmann has not ruled on the rest of the evidence that is disputed in Raffaele and Amanda’s appeal submissions?

Has media (Pisa, Dempsey or Vogt for example) spoken to any members of the jury about their views of the appeal so far?

Has the media (Pisa, Dempsey or Vogt or others) spoken to either of the appeal judges?

Is the media regarded as reliable in the context of this case now?

Use your deductive powers a little based on what you know. How do you think the appeal is going so far?

 

[pilot padron]

When all else fails, common sense ??

To all,

Andrea Vogt's article does not mention the decayed bra clasp, but it does discuss Curatolo's testimony. She wrote, "This week, Italian media reported that independent forensic experts determined that not enough of Kercher's genetic material was left on the blade of the knife alleged to be the murder weapon to do a repeat DNA test, a fact that police biologist Patrizia Stefanoni herself admitted in the 2009 trial." This is misleading, as noted by a commenter at that site.

If there is not enough DNA to test, there is no way to know to whom it belongs.

Again, admittedly from one with limited experience with the complexities of vertical gardening, may I proffer a common sense question as a reply.

If a professional accredited technician removes *most* of the only batch of dna that existed,
and this small batch was *all on one small particular area* of a knife,
and then using commonly accepted scientific procedures identifies *one* person from that sample.... .

Why would a usually very knowledgeable poster
who in the past has endowed the writings of the vertical gardener with the credibility and authority comparable to the stone tablets delivered by the Almighty to Moses,
express the above suggested bewilderment as to whom *the remainder* of that small (untestable) batch belonged ?

PS:
IMHO, anonymous comments on the Seattle PI Articles carry significantly less authority and credibility than yourself, judged by previous excellent information (and questions) given here and/or the vertical gardener's writings elsewhere

 

[CoulsdonUK]

Use your deductive powers a little based on what you know. How do you think the appeal is going so far?

Well I really don’t know, to be honest I was expecting more. I guess deductive reasoning leads me to conclude I’ll wait and see what happens. As former US Defence Secretary Rumsfeld once stated

“There are known knowns. These are things we know that we know. There are known unknowns. That is to say, there are things that we know we don't know. But there are also unknown unknowns. There are things we don't know we don't know.”

 

[pilot padron]

Two = Several ??

He made several spontaneous declarations.

.....*several* ????

Really ???

May I impose on your acknowledged above average accuracy when making factual statements about the case, and please help me find more than:
the *one* made on 6feb2009,
and *one* made on 3dec2009

 

[RoseMontague]

It appears Curatolo told the cops initially that he saw nothing.

"We have immediately asked the police and the police if we saw something - he said, using the plural in the name of his friends and acquaintances, visitors to the square Grimana - but we said no, we did not know anything."

http://translate.google.com/transla...tp://www.corrieredellumbria.it/news.asp?id=13
http://www.corrieredellumbria.it/news.asp?id=13

 

[capealadin]

To me , it always really reveals a lot about irrational thought processes when an argument must resort to constantly claiming conspiracy in every Italian person and their second cousins as the main reason a young American female has been unanimously convicted of a horrific murder in Perugia.

However, now we get the ultimate territorial stretch of this omnipresent conspiracy cockroach.

It has according to the latest bit of wisdom quoted above, imbedded itself so deeply in one's psychological make up that now this invisible evil veil of all encompassing voo doo conspiracy is even ridiculously prolongated to proclaim a preposterous novel prediction.

Soon, even the dreaded, derided, yet constantly carefully digested and quoted voices of reason at PMF will also eventually embrace this revered (but ever so irrational) conspiracy crutch to explain the unlikely appearance of a statistically highly improbable future outcome.

I agree with Rose. This a a beautiful post. I'm nominating it....