Continuation Part 2 - Discussion of the Amanda Knox case

[Fine]

Fine,

Raffaele was set to graduate and move in roughly two weeks, IIRC. So, that would have left Amanda to walk home alone from the bar at night.

___________________

In that case why wouldn't she quit two weeks later? And if she's planned to quit---fearing being out at night after the murder---why'd she not call Patrick earlier to tell him so? Provide him time to find a replacement for the night of November 6. Looks to me she made the decision to quit when she met him on the 5th, the same time she came to suspect him of the murder. Le Chic being a short walk from Raffaele's flat, fear of the night, is not a credible reason to quit. She had another reason.

///

 

[Rhea]

_________________________________

I take an intermediate position, Rhea. Both the cops and Amanda were misbehavin' that night. Yeah, as the interrogation progressed, Amanda told the cops what they wanted to hear---Patrick did it---and they even provided Amanda with the details on how he did it, but she would never have done so if she didn't believe Patrick was the culprit. She became convinced of Patrick's involvement on the morning of November 5th when she met him in front of the University for Foreigners. (Patrick surmised that it was during that meeting that Amanda decided to accuse him.)

One of the lies she told in court was that she quit her job during that meeting because she feared to be out at night. Huh? She had a boyfriend who could have escorted to and from work, using his car if they wished to be especially safe. Amanda quit her job because she feared Patrick. She feared Patrick because she thought he did it. She was wrong. (To paraphrase her private remark to Madison Paxton......she "copulated up." And so did the cops.) Where would she be now had she been right?

///

Fine, are you a mind reader now? How do you know she became convinced of Patrick's involvement in the crime on the morning of November 5th?

What Patrick said isn't proof either, he is not a mind reader himself …

The way the interrogation was processed, it is pretty obvious that the police made Amanda believe in Patrick's culpabilty.

But in the end, if you really believe Amanda became convinced of Patrick's involvement the morning she met him and that she was afraid of him (without any proof or indication), but if you believe that, you must also believe that Amanda is innocent, only if innocent she could believe in his guilt, if guilty she would know he is innocent.

So you have a flawed logic there for several reasons since you believe in her guilt if I'm correct …

 

[Danceme]

On the subject of the "staged" breakin, I can believe the rock was thrown from outside given the pattern of glass distribution. However there's a few things that don't completely add up for me in Hendry's explanations. For instance, can someone explain how the stack of 5 shoe boxes as well as the tv with the neatly folded piece of fabric on top didn't seem to have budged when the window blind swung open, hitting the wardrobe's open door hard enough to jostle the wardrobe and tumble most of it's contents to the floor?
The shoe boxes should be at some inclined angle, with perhaps one or two even on the floor, and that fabric should not be able to remain undisturbed either. Thoughts anyone?

 

[Rhea]

I guess I'd concur with your view that Knox's looks keep some straight men interested in the case. I can say that this is not my motivation though - I'm purely interested in it from an intellectual and moral point of view, and I'm as interested in the case against Sollecito as that against Knox. I entered the online debate almost by accident after seeking clarifications of some issues following my chance reading of "Darkness Descending" - it was only then that I started to learn the complexities about the case, and my interest has grown since then. I would admit, however, that in addition to my interest in the case itself, I'm also interested in observing - and trying to understand - what makes a small group of people (who are totally unconnected to the case) so vociferous in support of guilty verdicts, especially when that thinking is being shown to be increasingly blinkered and irrational.

I believe that without hesitation, this case is very fascinating in itself for the reasons you mentioned, another fascinating factor for me is the motivation and ongoings on the prosecution side; do they really believe in their guilt or do they know they're innocent? Did they plant evidence? Do they ever doubt their actions or conclusions they've drawn etc …

 

[Poppy1016]

If I recall correctly,the tv was yanked backwards. The cable below the window seems as though it was tripped on when Rudy climbed in the window

 

[babycondor]

On the subject of the "staged" breakin, I can believe the rock was thrown from outside given the pattern of glass distribution. However there's a few things that don't completely add up for me in Hendry's explanations. For instance, can someone explain how the stack of 5 shoe boxes as well as the tv with the neatly folded piece of fabric on top didn't seem to have budged when the window blind swung open, hitting the wardrobe's open door hard enough to jostle the wardrobe and tumble most of it's contents to the floor?
The shoe boxes should be at some inclined angle, with perhaps one or two even on the floor, and that fabric should not be able to remain undisturbed either. Thoughts anyone?

I don't think the blow from the shutters was hard enough to seriously jostle the entire wardrobe, but it was hard enough to cause the door to fly open and the tightly packed clothes to tumble out.

Hendry's theory is that the TV cable was pulled by Rudy's foot snagging it as he came through the window. This pulled the TV backwards into the stack of boxes, pushing them against the wall. The taut cable passes in front of the boxes, in effect securing the boxes on top of the wardrobe.

Hendry suggests two possible scenarios for how the clothes got from the wardrobe to the floor. 1. The clothing fell out when the shutter struck the cabinet door and knocked it open. 2. Rudy pulled it out and threw it on the floor while looking for money or drugs. Either (or both) of these are plausible to me.

 

[Antony]

I take an intermediate position, Rhea. Both the cops and Amanda were misbehavin' that night. Yeah, as the interrogation progressed, Amanda told the cops what they wanted to hear---Patrick did it---and they even provided Amanda with the details on how he did it, but she would never have done so if she didn't believe Patrick was the culprit.

Fine, I can understand that you find it hard to accept that the story about Patrick as the murderer was manufactured entirely by the police - people don't want to believe that the police can't be trusted. But false statements fed to a suspect are commonplace in the circumstances of the Nov 5-6 interrogation, and there is no reason that the victim of the interrogation would need to have any previous knowledge or belief in the content of the statement.

You seem not to see where the power is in the interrogator-suspect relationship: it's the police who held all the power, and they are quite capable of getting suspects to agree to whatever they wish them to say. The idea that the poor, misled Perugia police were manipulated by Amanda into their persecution of Patrick (or, in your version, it was half-and-half) is one of the most absurd claims of the pro-guilt argument.

She became convinced of Patrick's involvement on the morning of November 5th when she met him in front of the University for Foreigners. (Patrick surmised that it was during that meeting that Amanda decided to accuse him.)

This is the same Patrick who was quoted in the Daily Mail, saying that the police beat him and racially abused him, and then disowned the interview, right? And your evidence for your view comes from Patrick's speculation about what Amanda was thinking. Sorry, that's not very convincing.

One of the lies she told in court was that she quit her job during that meeting because she feared to be out at night. Huh? She had a boyfriend who could have escorted to and from work, using his car if they wished to be especially safe.

Again, it's a real stretch to imagine that this is even feasible. This kind of reasoning doesn't give you much credibility. As for it being "one of the lies" - well, I see no evidence that Amanda (or Raffaele) ever lied, in the sense that they made false statements intended to deceive. All there is, is uncorroborated accounts from the police (who lied far more demonstrably), plus some inaccurate statements they made as a result of police manipulation.

Amanda quit her job because she feared Patrick. She feared Patrick because she thought he did it. She was wrong. (To paraphrase her private remark to Madison Paxton......she "copulated up." And so did the cops.) Where would she be now had she been right?

All you are doing is making guesses about Amanda's reasons for quitting her job, and stating your guesses as fact. Amanda did indeed say that she was afraid of Patrick, but only because the police told her he was the murderer. Of course she was afraid of the murderer! And having Raffaele drive her to and from work wouldn't do much to change that - even if he was able to do it on a regular basis.

 

[Antony]

The fact is that were Amanda Knox a pathological liar, it would have been an established part of her personality by the age of 20, and there'd be loads of people who she'd annoyed or hurt by her lies coming forward to tell their stories.
There aren't.
She isn't.
To believe that she is, is absolutely ludicrous.

Exactly. The irony is that Amanda is one of the most lied-about people on Earth. This picture of her as an alleged "liar" is just part of the systematic character assassination that was launched by the prosecutor in order to achieve the false conviction. It is shameful that there are people ready to repeat this fabricated accusation against her on such a transparently dodgy basis.

 

[Antony]

On the subject of the "staged" breakin, I can believe the rock was thrown from outside given the pattern of glass distribution. However there's a few things that don't completely add up for me in Hendry's explanations. For instance, can someone explain how the stack of 5 shoe boxes as well as the tv with the neatly folded piece of fabric on top didn't seem to have budged when the window blind swung open, hitting the wardrobe's open door hard enough to jostle the wardrobe and tumble most of it's contents to the floor?
The shoe boxes should be at some inclined angle, with perhaps one or two even on the floor, and that fabric should not be able to remain undisturbed either. Thoughts anyone?

A rock through a window has results with a fair degree of randomness, and the fact that there were some items which might have been, but weren't, disturbed by the rock, the glass fragments, or the window swinging is just part of that randomness.

As it happens, randomness is one of the most difficult things to simulate. Had the break-in really been staged by breaking the window inside the flat and then arranging the debris, the most obvious signs would be that the arrangement was not sufficiently random to be genuine. Instead, those claiming that it was staged can only point to random aspects of it, and try to pretend that they are in some way suspicious.

 

[LondonJohn]

So, according to la Française faux et prétentieux, there's nothing to discuss about the ongoing criminal case against Knox and Sollecito at the moment - which means that the only issues worthy of discussion right now are how best to criticise and/or parody various individuals with no direct connection to the case. Oh, and of course also to whip up ridiculous and near-paranoiac theories about how a Perugian blogger is lying - and manipulating a respectable journalistic campaigning group and various media outlets - in order to portray himself as a martyr and/or to get himself noticed.

Surely (you'd think) she'd be aware of the substantial developments in the appeal? They have been discussed and debated here on JREF at length over the past few weeks, but funnily enough they have pretty much slipped under the radar at the pro-guilt advocacy sites. But in case it's all slipped her memory, here's a reminder of all the happenings directly related to the criminal trial that have come to light over the past six weeks or so:

Late March: Curatolo appears in front of Hellmann's court, and admits that he's a long-term heroin addict as well as a recently-convicted dealer. He also says that he was almost certainly high on heroin on the evening/night of the murder. He managed to slip bizarre religious references into his testimony, and came across as utterly unreliable and untrustworthy.

Late March: the disco owners testified that there were no disco buses running on the night of the murder - directly contradicting Curatolo's testimony.

Late March: Italian press report that the independent scientific review of the knife and bra clasp is unable to find any DNA on the knife, and that the bra clasp has rusted and degraded to an untestable condition owing to improper storage by the Perugia police.

Mid-April: An article in Italy's Oggi magazine claims that Nara Capezzali (the ear witness) was unsure of the night on which she says she heard the "blood-curdling scream of death" - a scream which she didn't bother to report to anyone for over three weeks. Capezzali may be recalled by Hellmann's court later in the appeal.

Mid May: It's reported in the Italian media that the independent experts are seeking a 40-day delay in their report, which was originally due on May 21st. The reports state that the experts' reason for requesting the delay is that they haven't received the source DNA electropherograms and source data from the original tests performed by Stefanoni on the knife and the bra clasp. The reports further say that Hellmann himself has consequently been in direct contact with Stefanoni during April, essentially ordering her to turn over this information to the independent experts.

Now, I'd argue that all of the above are interesting and significant developments in the actual criminal case, and all are worthy of discussion. But I am guessing that if you've allied yourself unswervingly to a particular viewpoint, you might tend to avoid discussing things which challenge your viewpoint...

 

[Antony]

So, according to la Française faux et prétentieux, there's nothing to discuss about the ongoing criminal case against Knox and Sollecito at the moment - which means that the only issues worthy of discussion right now are how best to criticise and/or parody various individuals with no direct connection to the case. Oh, and of course also to whip up ridiculous and near-paranoiac theories about how a Perugian blogger is lying - and manipulating a respectable journalistic campaigning group and various media outlets - in order to portray himself as a martyr and/or to get himself noticed.

Surely (you'd think) she'd be aware of the substantial developments in the appeal? They have been discussed and debated here on JREF at length over the past few weeks, but funnily enough they have pretty much slipped under the radar at the pro-guilt advocacy sites. But in case it's all slipped her memory, here's a reminder of all the happenings directly related to the criminal trial that have come to light over the past six weeks or so:

Late March: Curatolo appears in front of Hellmann's court, and admits that he's a long-term heroin addict as well as a recently-convicted dealer. He also says that he was almost certainly high on heroin on the evening/night of the murder. He managed to slip bizarre religious references into his testimony, and came across as utterly unreliable and untrustworthy.

Late March: the disco owners testified that there were no disco buses running on the night of the murder - directly contradicting Curatolo's testimony.

Late March: Italian press report that the independent scientific review of the knife and bra clasp is unable to find any DNA on the knife, and that the bra clasp has rusted and degraded to an untestable condition owing to improper storage by the Perugia police.

Mid-April: An article in Italy's Oggi magazine claims that Nara Capezzali (the ear witness) was unsure of the night on which she says she heard the "blood-curdling scream of death" - a scream which she didn't bother to report to anyone for over three weeks. Capezzali may be recalled by Hellmann's court later in the appeal.

Mid May: It's reported in the Italian media that the independent experts are seeking a 40-day delay in their report, which was originally due on May 21st. The reports state that the experts' reason for requesting the delay is that they haven't received the source DNA electropherograms and source data from the original tests performed by Stefanoni on the knife and the bra clasp. The reports further say that Hellmann himself has consequently been in direct contact with Stefanoni during April, essentially ordering her to turn over this information to the independent experts.

Now, I'd argue that all of the above are interesting and significant developments in the actual criminal case, and all are worthy of discussion. But I am guessing that if you've allied yourself unswervingly to a particular viewpoint, you might tend to avoid discussing things which challenge your viewpoint...

Yes - it all makes Amazer's "the appeal's going just fine" and Alt-F4's "I guarantee the convictions will be upheld" all the more baffling.

 

[Fine]

All you are doing is making guesses about Amanda's reasons for quitting her job, and stating your guesses as fact. Amanda did indeed say that she was afraid of Patrick, but only because the police told her he was the murderer. Of course she was afraid of the murderer! And having Raffaele drive her to and from work wouldn't do much to change that - even if he was able to do it on a regular basis.

__________________________

Antony,

I wonder if that ain't one of the reasons Raffaele chose not to testify. Do you suppose Amanda might have discussed this subject---the reason for quitting her job--- with her boyfriend? Had he said Amanda quit because she thought Patrick was the murderer.........just how "internalized" by the cops would her accusation appear?

And if you think Amanda's testimony in court is pure gospel truth, you should watch the video on YouTube (if still there) of Amanda explaining to the judges the meaning of "Foxy Knoxy." Not relevant to her guilt or innocence, but she's playing stupid.

///

 

[Rhea]

__________________________

Antony,

I wonder if that ain't one of the reasons Raffaele chose not to testify. Do you suppose Amanda might have discussed this subject---the reason for quitting her job--- with her boyfriend? Had he said Amanda quit because she thought Patrick was the murderer.........just how "internalized" by the cops would her accusation appear?

Fine, Amanda said she was afraid of Patrick after and/or during the interrogation, not before the interrogation, so it's indeed internalized, you have no proof for your claim that Amanda believed Patrick to be the murderer before the interrogation, it's pureley guessing on your side, which ironically would also make her innocent, because an innocent Amanda only could become convinced of Patrick's guilt.

 

[Rhea]

Yes - it all makes Amazer's "the appeal's going just fine" and Alt-F4's "I guarantee the convictions will be upheld" all the more baffling.

But, there are still all their LIES!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

The "lies" are all they need …

 

[Katody Matrass]

On the subject of the "staged" breakin, I can believe the rock was thrown from outside given the pattern of glass distribution.

How do you reconcile it with the police claim that they saw no glass outside?

However there's a few things that don't completely add up for me in Hendry's explanations. For instance, can someone explain how the stack of 5 shoe boxes as well as the tv with the neatly folded piece of fabric on top didn't seem to have budged when the window blind swung open, hitting the wardrobe's open door hard enough to jostle the wardrobe and tumble most of it's contents to the floor?

Please review this image again. I highlighted your statements that are in conflict with the situation in picture. The boxes are clearly disturbed and not form a neat stack anymore. Most of the contents are still inside. The proposed course of events is that Guede got caught in the cable when stepping inside. The cable pulled the TV towards the boxes and shook the wardrobe by it's corner, resulting in a twisting motion along the vertical axis. Basically the wardrobe shook, but most probably didn't lean.

The shoe boxes should be at some inclined angle, with perhaps one or two even on the floor, and that fabric should not be able to remain undisturbed either. Thoughts anyone?

It's simple mechanics. Stack of light clothes, positioned on the very edge of the shelf and getting very little friction from the smooth surface is expected to fall out first, unlike the much heavier TV set. Boxes seem to be held in place by the (now strained) cable. They are probably not empty and heavy too - friction and inertia helped much here.

The situation looks consistent with the proposed explanation to me.

 

[spartacus]

But, there are still all their LIES!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

The "lies" are all they need …

Would you like to make a list? I'll start and you can join me.

THE LIES

AK: "I heard Patrick at the apartment, I covered my ears because of the scream"

Spacey "imaginations" induced by brutal police interrogation tactics. That's why such things are usually not allowed.

RS: "Meredith may have pricked herself with a knife"
Trying to come up with some kind of "explanation" for the "solid evidence" the police lied about.

RS: "We went out to a party." They went out the night before, maybe he got confused (anyone else?)

anything else??

So now let's start a list of lies from the police.

1. There was bleach/there was a strong smell of bleach
2. We have evidence you (AK) were at the apartment/murder scene.
3. Your boyfriend doesn t give you an alibi
4. AK had 7 boyfriends in past two months in Italy
5. AK is HIV positive.
6. #5 was due to lab error
7. We found mixed blood of AK and MK
8. There were bloody footprints outside the room belonging to AK
9. There was a bloody footprint under MK that belonged to AK, no wait RS
10. There was a staged break in
11. RS called the cops after they got there

any more? looks like the list on the side of la polizia is a little longer than on the other side.

 

[Rhea]

Would you like to make a list? I'll start and you can join me.

THE LIES

AK: "I heard Patrick at the apartment, I covered my ears because of the scream"

Spacey "imaginations" induced by brutal police interrogation tactics. That's why such things are usually not allowed.

RS: "Meredith may have pricked herself with a knife"
Trying to come up with some kind of "explanation" for the "solid evidence" the police lied about.

RS: "We went out to a party." They went out the night before, maybe he got confused (anyone else?)

anything else??

My favourite one was something along the lines; "Raffaele said the door of Filomena's room was ajar when they came in, Amanda said it was closed!" — Tiny things like that … as if we humans had brains like computers, noticing every detail correctly and if we don't; "LIE!!!" ---> GUILTY!

Or; Amanda said they ate at 9:30 pm, then changed it to 11 pm to construct an alibi for the TOD of Meredith. (As if that would even work, but Amanda is not only guilty, she is also dumb as bread).

In the E-Mail to her family and friends she said she was panicked about Meredith's locked door but didn't appear panicked in reality, so she was lying to her family …

I thought the almost kafkaesque allegation by Machiavelli below was precious; Amanda lied to the police about Meredith's door locking habits to justify her lack of concern about the locked door. Because she is an actor through and through (but she wasn't capapble of just appearing concerned with her sublime acting skills?)

Amanda's comment about the locked door had the function to sway the attention, by highlighting lack of concern or justify her apparent lack of concern in the peculiar context of that moment. This is what I mean it shows to be part of an acting, the comment is a way to keep control on others perception of events, an improvised line due to the moment as an actor would do on stage.

So now let's start a list of lies from the police.

1. There was bleach/there was a strong smell of bleach
2. We have evidence you (AK) were at the apartment/murder scene.
3. Your boyfriend doesn t give you an alibi
4. AK had 7 boyfriends in past two months in Italy
5. AK is HIV positive.
6. #5 was due to lab error
7. We found mixed blood of AK and MK
8. There were bloody footprints outside the room belonging to AK
9. There was a bloody footprint under MK that belonged to AK, no wait RS
10. There was a staged break in
11. RS called the cops after they got there

any more? looks like the list on the side of la polizia is a little longer than on the other side.

They seem to be lying about hitting Amanda during the interrogation which I found truly astonishing when I first heard they were going to sue her. Since Amanda and Raffaele are evidently innocent, I find it extremely implausible that she would lie about the hitting incident during the interrogation, yet they insist she's lying about it.

Mignini also said in the latest CNN documentary that Amanda is lying when she says the police told her to "imagine" what happened … so it seems Mignini is the one lying here … although he wasn't present himself during the interrogation, I'm sure he is familiar with their interrogation practices …

The luminol footprints made in "blood" later turned out to have been tested negative for blood (but these results were withheld for half a year) …

 

[Chris_Halkides]

Jim Croce

Charlie Wilkes provided a list on or about August second in the first continuation thread. Several commenters added to it in the days that followed, and I referred to it recently in a discussion with Fuji. BTW, a series of comment titles in the last few days were all songs recorded by Jim Croce, in case anyone was wondering.

 

[Rhea]

Jim Croce

Charlie Wilkes provided a list on or about August second in the first continuation thread. Several commenters added to it in the days that followed, and I referred to it recently in a discussion with Fuji. BTW, a series of comment titles in the last few days were all songs recorded by Jim Croce, in case anyone was wondering.

Ooh, I love Time in a Bottle … have to find out more about that artist, just recently discovered him when this song was played in a film.

 

[Danceme]

How do you reconcile it with the police claim that they saw no glass outside?

Is it supposed to reconcile? Isn't this what everyone here has been saying all along, that the rock was thrown from the outside yet it doesn't necessarily mean glass would have fallen to the ground outside? I'm not sure I get your point.

Please review this image again. I highlighted your statements that are in conflict with the situation in picture. The boxes are clearly disturbed and not form a neat stack anymore. Most of the contents are still inside. The proposed course of events is that Guede got caught in the cable when stepping inside. The cable pulled the TV towards the boxes and shook the wardrobe by it's corner, resulting in a twisting motion along the vertical axis. Basically the wardrobe shook, but most probably didn't lean.

It's simple mechanics. Stack of light clothes, positioned on the very edge of the shelf and getting very little friction from the smooth surface is expected to fall out first, unlike the much heavier TV set. Boxes seem to be held in place by the (now strained) cable. They are probably not empty and heavy too - friction and inertia helped much here.

The situation looks consistent with the proposed explanation to me.

I can't say I agree. The boxes are still neatly stacked with none pulled toward the front or even touching the wall as I would expect had the wardrobe been jostled forward. The neatly folded cloth on the tv hasn't slipped at all and the tv still faces the bed and hasn't twisted at all. I don't think Rudy or anyone stepped on the cord as is suggested. I just don't, the situation in those pictures doesn't support this notion to me. If all those clothes on the floor supposedly came from the wardrobe they would have been jammed in there and not positioned on the very edge of the shelf as you suppose, ready to simply slip off. Either those clothes were there already, or at least the majority of them were, enabling a few loosely stacked items to fall out if jostled, or they were pulled out.