Continuation Part 2 - Discussion of the Amanda Knox case

[Katody Matrass]

I tend to concentrate on the arguments for guilt as presented by quadraginta and lionking, although I focus on many of your fine arguments for guilt as well.

LOL, good one, RoseMontague

 

[Katody Matrass]

Has police misconduct and or misdeeds been raised in either defence submissions or are you expressing an opinion?

Brutal investigation with slapping around has been reported very early, IIRC.

Italy is quite specific among developed nations when it comes to their justice system - it firmly holds first place in human rights violations, even before Russia and Turkey, especially the right to fair trial. I think defence lawyers know that specifics and take it into account.
We've seen the reaction after Amanda repeated the truth about the interrogation. Were the involved officers investigated? Were they brought into separate rooms, their versions of events taken into detailed time segments and then compared for inaccuracies and contradictions? Was there any real investigation of the reported police misconduct?

There is a lot to question in this case. Apart from the brutal unlawful interrogation we have inexplicable police incompetence which is hard to tell from deliberate actions.
Telling the girl she has HIV when it's not true - psychological torture in my book.
Destroying evidence - the metadata, the harddrives, now the bra hook.
Failing to secure the evidence - the CCTV footage not acquired until it was too late, body weight and temperature crucial for the ToD estimation, the bra clasp and numerous other items retrieved much too late after the crime scene had been completely trashed and contaminated.
We've seen false evidence used against Amanda and Raffaele in the pre-trial - the sweatshirt that cops looked for so much, that was laying in full view in her room all that time, the shoeprints falsely used against Raffaele - it's inexplicable how police expert could have missed what was obvious to laymen. Not to mention the lies about the time of arrival and phone calls.

We've seen the methods of Scientifica - how they mixed DNA by rubbing entire surfaces and multiple areas with one swab, all of it without changing gloves between samples and foot covers between rooms. We've seen how a shoe box or a wrapping paper found on spot is good enough for them for securing DNA evidence.

Has any police officer or forensic officer been disciplined in connection to the investigation or trial?

Knowing the usual course of action in such miscarriages of justice I doubt that will happen, although it should. Cops close ranks and shut up when one of them comes under scrutiny. When they hold all the advantages it's not that easy to prove that their numerous "mistakes" are not just incompetence.

In your opinion should someone be disciplined for the destroying and failing to secure the crucial evidence? Should the allegations of police brutality be properly investigated?

 

[Justinian2]

Do I have this correct ????

Your somewhat demeaning reactionary characterization from 'on high' of Justinian is that he is your "most emotionally committed" and therefore "least rational" pro innocence compatriot ??

Really, now ???

With friends like this, who does need enemies ??

Ha. One wonders.

KL has one thing right. I am exasperated not only by this case but by several others as well. I used to run a police brutality site until I was maximally exasperated. The one thing I preached was that you had to have video of police brutality in order to make claims of same. A few years later 'You Tube' came along and my dreams of videotaped incidents of police brutality were realized.

I agree with Mark Waterbury. He seems pretty emotional himself.

My main interest is why Amanda and Raffaele were framed. The prosecution tried way too hard to convict Amanda and Raffaele when they already had plenty of evidence against Guede. The theory that Guede was an informant of Mignini seems too plausible to ignore.

 

[theRealBob]

If I may reply to this post, I would say if Grudy himself came out and confessed to the crime and claimed Amanda had nothing to do with it, even though I believe that he is a bigger lier than Amanda herself, I think I would believe this because, if she really had nothing to do with it, he would have said so, especially now that his trials are over.

Jail beatings are really common.

If Rudy suddenly told the truth that two other people are doing hard time for his disgustingly filthy crime he would be beaten continuously by other inmates for the remaining 15 years of his sentence.

They would take a dim view of him. Rudy would be very aware of this obvious fact.

There's also the primitive raping and murdering a frightened nice little girl on your own aspect to the crime.

 

[Kaosium]

Correct. I doubt this will be necessary though. I don't believe in a conspiracy of police, forensic scientists and prosecutors.

Lionking, that doesn't make any sense at all. Have you actually been paying attention to this debate? It took extraordinary factors that you call 'conspiracy' to get past the first court, the eventual acquittal of Amanda and Raffaele at some point in this process is virtually guaranteed. The ones you think of as 'supporting the victim' are the online lynch mob, they'd decided Amanda and Raffaele were guilty long before the verdict in the court of first instance, you can go back to their archives on Dec 4th, 2009 and see they have two-hundred thirty-some people online 'celebrating' it.

Italy has the 'reasonable doubt' standard, it also allows for two appeals as injustices of the sort inflicted on Raffaele and Amanda are commonplace in that system, that's why something on the order of 40% of all verdicts from the first court are overturned or modified. The actual trial hasn't even started yet, first they're sorting out whether the obviously bogus evidence from the last will even be allowed in court, which is something that should have been done--and was requested and denied--by the Massei Court. It's looking pretty grim for the lynch mob, those were the three best pieces of 'evidence' from the last trial and cannot stand the scrutiny they received.

Just think about it. They cannot even come up with a scenario where it's possible that Raffaele and Amanda were involved that actually employs evidence in the effort. Therefore what do you think the odds are that anything can be presented that even comes close to proving guilt beyond a reasonable doubt? There'll be no motive, no witnesses, no evidence at all of either in the murder room, no murder weapon, and the real killer is behind bars already. Raffaele and Amanda may well have an electronic alibi for the entire time the murder could have been committed.

It's 'game over' for the idea that Raffaele and Amanda will be acquitted, it's just a matter of time now. Can't you tell that simply by the parameters of the debate?

 

[Danceme]

He sourced himself very well in first part of the book where he discussed why Amanda and Raffaele were innocent.

In the final act of his book, his theories began about who the real monster of Perugia was. There he introduces his theroies as "compatible with" - you know the catchy phrase used by Mignini to explain all his theories. Like all scientific theory, the model he proposed agrees with twenty or more observations he noted in the case. He calls these observations "dots" and he attempts to fill in the dots with reasons. A good theory passes the test of time and explains much. His theory explains WHY Amanda and Raffele were framed. Much of that theory also speculates that Guede was an informant working with the Perugian authorities under the watchful eye of Mignini.

It makes no sense to frame an American college student and a prominent Doctor's son.

It. simply. does. not. make. sense.

If the police were trying to protect Rudy, they would most likely frame a less significant person, one unlikely to attract so much attention and possibly one financially incapable of mounting any sort of reasonable defense. They could have kept Patrick even, the Swiss professor's alibi for him had holes and Patrick did some things which could have looked particularly incriminating such as changing his cell phone the very next day.

If they were trying to frame Amanda and Raffaele you can be sure there would still be enough of Meredith's DNA on the knife to retest and confirm the results and there would be plenty of Raffaele's DNA on the bra clasp as well.

Problem is, there's absolutely zero incentive for him to tell the truth now, if indeed he acted alone - and in fact there's a feasible incentive for him to stick to his story. It's easy to see that, despite his trial being over, he thinks he may be slightly better regarded as the "least culpable" of a gang of three which included Knox and Sollecito: he can still finesse in his own mind (and to other inmates/guards/friends(?)) that he was caught up in something that he'd never intended. However, if indeed he was there on his own, he has nowhere to hide, and nobody to hide behind.

I don't think we'll ever hear the truth out of Guede's mouth. He implicated Knox and Sollecito because it was clearly expedient for him to do so (and he knew they were in custody and the "case was closed" by the time he himself was arrested). By the same logic, he won't now come out and say that this was all a lie and that they weren't there.

So, in conclusion, I think it's not correct to say that if Guede were the sole assailant, he would now come out and admit that. Similarly, I think it's incorrect to infer that if Guede doesn't come out with a "sole assailant" confession now, this in any way means that Knox and/or Sollecito (or anyone else, for that matter) were in any way involved.

What about pangs of conscience? Even hardened criminals suffer these. I don't believe Rudy would continue to allow these two to rot in jail for him.

So ... are you going to answer the question?

You doubt that the verdict will be overturned because you can't believe in a police "conspiracy". Exactly why is police misconduct less plausible than the fantasy crime narrative put forward by the prosecution? What would it take to convince you that there was police misconduct, on top of their misdeeds so far?

It requires much more than police misconduct to believe in a framing of Amanda and Raffaele. Most people are aware police misconduct certainly exists but a collusion between all police, prosecuters, judges, forensic scientists and more is a whole other ball game.

Ha. One wonders.

KL has one thing right. I am exasperated not only by this case but by several others as well. I used to run a police brutality site until I was maximally exasperated. The one thing I preached was that you had to have video of police brutality in order to make claims of same. A few years later 'You Tube' came along and my dreams of videotaped incidents of police brutality were realized.

I agree with Mark Waterbury. He seems pretty emotional himself.

My main interest is why Amanda and Raffaele were framed. The prosecution tried way too hard to convict Amanda and Raffaele when they already had plenty of evidence against Guede. The theory that Guede was an informant of Mignini seems too plausible to ignore.

Do you honestly think Perugian officials would wage an elaborate campaign to frame two innocent, high-profile people, one an American for which there was certain to be international involvement and backlash, the other a prominent and wealthy Doctor's son, to protect someone like Rudy Guede? Even if he had an inside track to the drug scene, I doubt they would feel the tradeoff was worth it. Rudy was expendable.

 

[Chris_Halkides]

A confederacy of John Kennedy Toole

I don't believe in a conspiracy of police, forensic scientists and prosecutors.

I don't believe in a conspiracy, either. They are not in Swift's league.

 

[Mary_H]

It makes no sense to frame an American college student and a prominent Doctor's son.

It. simply. does. not. make. sense.

If the police were trying to protect Rudy, they would most likely frame a less significant person, one unlikely to attract so much attention and possibly one financially incapable of mounting any sort of reasonable defense.
If they were trying to frame Amanda and Raffaele you can be sure there would still be enough of Meredith's DNA on the knife to retest and confirm the results and there would be plenty of Raffaele's DNA on the bra clasp as well.

That's an excellent point, Danceme. If the evidence were manufactured, whether on the items or "on paper," it is reasonable to expect that the prosecutors would have gone to much greater lengths to produce evidence that was not so paltry.

The key seems to be that the prosecutors were not expecting their evidence to be questioned so vigorously. It's not that they didn't frame Amanda and Raffaele, it's that they did a really terrible job of it. They simply took advantage of opportunities, instead of formulating strategies.

 

[Mary_H]

<snip>
It requires much more than police misconduct to believe in a framing of Amanda and Raffaele. Most people are aware police misconduct certainly exists but a collusion between all police, prosecuters, judges, forensic scientists and more is a whole other ball game.

Do you honestly think Perugian officials would wage an elaborate campaign to frame two innocent, high-profile people, one an American for which there was certain to be international involvement and backlash, the other a prominent and wealthy Doctor's son, to protect someone like Rudy Guede? Even if he had an inside track to the drug scene, I doubt they would feel the tradeoff was worth it. Rudy was expendable.

Was it really that elaborate? Wasn't it just a simple case of the head of the investigation telling other people what to do, and them going about doing it? It happens every day in every business; it's just that some aspects of the justice system in Perugia allowed components of the case to snowball, where they might not have done so in other systems. For one thing, in Italy, the magistrates have more power than the politicians. For another, the relationship between the police and the press is cozy, and in this case, the press had enormous influence as mouthpieces for the prosecution.

Because of his own indictments, Mignini had a strong stake in succeeding at prosecuting a high profile case. If nobody else cared as much or more than he did about it, why wouldn't they go along with him? It wasn't collusion, it was passivity.

The three-trial system doesn't help. The stakes are not high for the first trial in Italy -- who cares if defendants are found guilty in the first trial, when they're going to get two more chances, and the lawyers and judges get paid one or two more times? Many aspects of the case from start to finish seem to be no more than business as usual.

 

[Dan O.]

That's an excellent point, Danceme. If the evidence were manufactured, whether on the items or "on paper," it is reasonable to expect that the prosecutors would have gone to much greater lengths to produce evidence that was not so paltry.

That is only a viable option if the one faking the evidence has absolute assurance that suspects will not come up with an airtight alibi. Producing evidence that just barely enables a conviction but can be attributed to other causes is the perfect setup that allows for plausible deniability if the suspect manages to prove their innocence. If done right, such evidence would be indistinguishable from natural contamination or an innocent coincidence.

I don't see anyone having anything to gain from framing Amanda and Raffaele. It's just some cops and prosecutors that think they have a superrior ability to spot the guilty and think that a little push will help to get justice served

 

[Chris C]

It makes no sense to frame an American college student and a prominent Doctor's son.

It. simply. does. not. make. sense.

Doesn't make any sense to charge 20 people with conspiracy to hide a murder using a double body swap. Mignini did that.
Doesn't make sense to charge Spezi as being the Monster of Florence and throw him in Capanne Prison for 23 days and deny him access to a lawyer. Mignini did that.

Though I don't think he framed them by using evidence, I don't see why you would think he wouldn't frame someone.

 

[Chris C]

What about pangs of conscience? Even hardened criminals suffer these. I don't believe Rudy would continue to allow these two to rot in jail for him.

What exactly has Guede done to show he has a conscience. He was given a chance to Identify Knox and Sollecito as the killers and he refused. Instead he appologized that he wasn't able to save Meredith. That sound like a pang of conscience?

Here is what we do know Rudy did. He killed Meredith either during a botched robbery or during a botched rape. We know this because his dna was found on the victim's body and on the victims clothes. His hand print and shoe prints were made in the victims blood. Yet he appologizes to the family of Meredith for not saving her. He didn't appologize for killing her. So what part of this story sounds like he has a pang of conscience?

 

[Chris C]

Do you honestly think Perugian officials would wage an elaborate campaign to frame two innocent, high-profile people, one an American for which there was certain to be international involvement and backlash, the other a prominent and wealthy Doctor's son, to protect someone like Rudy Guede? Even if he had an inside track to the drug scene, I doubt they would feel the tradeoff was worth it. Rudy was expendable.

Did they not do an elaborate campaign to frame them? The prosecution from start to the end of the trial leaked lies to the press. The only reason you would blatantly lie to the press would be to get the support of the people behind you because the evidence itself is weak. There isn't a per say framing by the manufactoring of evidence, there is a framing by use of the press to deny a fair trial. There is more than one way to frame someone.

 

[Antony]

It requires much more than police misconduct to believe in a framing of Amanda and Raffaele. Most people are aware police misconduct certainly exists but a collusion between all police, prosecuters, judges, forensic scientists and more is a whole other ball game.

Since this part of your post is a direct reply to mine, I am not answering the other parts directly. My question still stands: why is collusion, conspiracy, police misconduct or whatever you want to call it in any way implausible? It happens repeatedly in cases like these.

Why is it less plausible than all the impossible things we are asked to believe to accept the prosecution's narrative of the crime? We have to believe:

- that 2 college students with no history of violence teamed up with an unemployed drifter who they didn't know to commit the murder;
- that after 6 days together, AK and RS's sex life had become so stale that they needed a 4-way sex game with an unwilling partner to spice it up;
- that they did so without leaving any trace of DNA from Amanda in the murder room, and just an alleged speck of DNA of Raffaele on a single item;
- that having done they murder they "staged" a break-in in such a way that it was indistinguishable from a real break-in;
- that having done the murder, they then went back to the crime scene and called the police (the story that the call was made after the postal police arrived is one of the lies told against them);
- that the 2 of them cooperated with the police for 4 days despite everything;
- that the police guessed the truth on the basis of their "behaviour", before even starting the investigation of the crime scene.

All of the above (not exhaustive in the prosecution's narrative) are extraordinary claims. To make extraordinary claims you need extraordinary evidence - but what you have is an extraordinary lack of evidence. It didn't happen.

Against that there is a long catalogue of police lies, negligence and incompetence, coupled with blatant lack of impartiality in the conduct of the trial. Yet you and Lionking invoke "conspiracy", and declare it less believable than the fantasy story of guilt. Why?

 

[lionking]

Since this part of your post is a direct reply to mine, I am not answering the other parts directly. My question still stands: why is collusion, conspiracy, police misconduct or whatever you want to call it in any way implausible? It happens repeatedly in cases like these.

And nobody blows the whistle? How much do you think just one of those involved would get from the Brit tabloids for spilling the beans?

No, this grand conspiracy by so many just doesn't wash.

 

[Chris C]

And nobody blows the whistle? How much do you think just one of those involved would get from the Brit tabloids for spilling the beans?

No, this grand conspiracy by so many just doesn't wash.

How many people that have spoke up against Mignini are charged with slander? Do you honestly believe all of them lied? Heck from what I hear, Mignini is willing to help wth slander cases against people on US soil exercising their right to free speach. You also base this logic on the fact that guilty police officers would admit to the press that they committed crimes.

 

[Antony]

And nobody blows the whistle? How much do you think just one of those involved would get from the Brit tabloids for spilling the beans?

No, this grand conspiracy by so many just doesn't wash.

This is known as the argument from incredulity fallacy. This is a police force that repeatedly lied and destroyed evidence - what is it that "just doesn't wash"?

The British tabloids show no sign of interest in exposing police misconduct, either. Even when there is a confirmed conspiracy, as in the Guildford pub bombing case, all they do is make excuses for the police.

My question still stands: why is the prosecution crime narrative more credible than the idea that the police colluded to fit up 2 innocent suspects (something that has happened many times before)?

 

[PhantomWolf]

And nobody blows the whistle? How much do you think just one of those involved would get from the Brit tabloids for spilling the beans?

No, this grand conspiracy by so many just doesn't wash.

Really lionking? I would have thought that you'd realise that serious police corrupution going on for a decade or so was entirely possible based on your own country's record. How long would it have continued if not for a brave reporter who was willing to take the risk of being sued for deformation, and the fact that the person that would have canned the investigation wasn't in the State to do so?

 

[lionking]

Really lionking? I would have thought that you'd realise that serious police corrupution going on for a decade or so was entirely possible based on your own country's record. How long would it have continued if not for a brave reporter who was willing to take the risk of being sued for deformation, and the fact that the person that would have canned the investigation wasn't in the State to do so?

That's right, there are a heap of whistleblowers in Australia. Thanks for supporting my point.

 

[PhantomWolf]

That's right, there are a heap of whistleblowers in Australia. Thanks for supporting my point.

Who all got sued, successfully, for defamation and no one believed them, hang on this is sounding familar.....