Continuation Part 2 - Discussion of the Amanda Knox case

[LondonJohn]

I can't imagine a scenario in which he is less guilty than what he has already admitted so I don't know why he would confess more, let alone fully.




That would be amazing, but it is highly unlikely. Especially that so far they have not spent much effort in pleading him.
Silently surviving Rudy's testimony is a more probable strategy.

It is enough to recall the preliminary trial. All three were there passively enjoying the lawyers' clashing and then withdrawing into their cells.

It is in fact by far the best option for Knox and Sollecito if they remain silent at pretty much all times during the judicial process. You seem to be presenting it as some sort of game that they were playing, but any half-decent lawyer would have instructed Knox and Sollecito to remain silent. This is particularly true in this case, since Knox and Sollecito could end up tying themselves up in knots during any cross-examination, on account of things they might have said and done in the days after the murder.

Note that I'm not suggesting that they have anything to hide: I'm only suggesting that a skilled prosecutor could easily get them to tie themselves up or even contradict themselves, and that wouldn't make them look good in front of the court. Being a defendant in a murder trial is an extremely stressful and extreme experience for nearly anyone, and it's entirely possible for people who have absolutely nothing to hide to make themselves look shifty or mendacious if they choose to testify in their own defence. This is an extremely well-documented issue, and it's why defence lawyers rarely advise their clients to testify - unless their testimony is vital to their defence (alibi, or other provable information that mitigates against their guilt).

The only possible exception is the particular rule in Italian courts that defendants can make "spontaneous declarations" at any point. These declarations are not subject to any cross-examination, and can also be carefully worded in advance. That's why we've seen Knox make a number of such declarations, but not formally take the stand to give evidence in her own defence.

 

[LondonJohn]

At Raffaele's place, at the front door, at about 20:40.
In my theory Amanda then went to the cottage to change clothes as she did not have to go to work in the bar.
I don't know where she planned to go afterwards, nor what she had said to Raffaele about it.

You don't see how this contradicts Sollecito's alleged statement to the police on 5th November, in which he and Knox were out and about until 9pm, at which point he left Knox and returned to his apartment?

 

[bolint]

Claudia Matteini said in her report that Raffaele had retracted his claim that he was not with Amanda that night.

"As far as the presence of Knox Amanda is concerned in the place of the murder, there are the statements from Sollecito who has lately confirmed that he was always together with her and in the objective circumstances that only the aforementioned had access to the keys of the apartment in via della Pergola and had therefore the ability to open the front door without leaving any signs of breakage. […] "

That's from The Telegraph.

Yes. Matteini is the only source of a vague claim.
Raffaele then went on to spend 3 years in the jail, and he sat through the trial without repeating it.

He corrected the carabiniere call paradox, remembered the terrible experience of his barefoot prep walk, exchanged smiles and glances with Amanda, but for some reason he did not say "this brave young lady was always with me that night".

Why?

 

[Matthew Best]

He corrected the carabiniere call paradox, remembered the terrible experience of his barefoot prep walk, exchanged smiles and glances with Amanda, but for some reason he did not say "this brave young lady was always with me that night".

Why?

Is it because he's a murderer?

 

[bolint]

You don't see how this contradicts Sollecito's alleged statement to the police on 5th November, in which he and Knox were out and about until 9pm, at which point he left Knox and returned to his apartment?

Of course I see it.
At about 20:40 Amanda was surely at his place and he almost surely was there, too.

So Sollecito's claim is not true for some reason.

Why?

 

[LondonJohn]

My view on the alleged statement from Sollecito about he and Knox parting outside at around 9pm, and her returning to his apartment at around 1am, is as follows:

1) This statement was never introduced in the actual criminal trial of Knox and Sollecito.

2) In theory, the prosecution could have introduced this statement - even though it was obtained while Sollecito was still (technically) a witness, and without a lawyer present - since it's not self-incriminating: it tends to incriminate Knox, not Sollecito.

3) I think the obvious reason why it was not introduced in court is threefold: a) Ms Popovic's testimony that Knox (and almost certainly also Sollecito) were at Sollecito's apartment at around 8.40pm - which contradicts Sollecito's statement; b) Sollecito's immediate retraction of the statement in court on November 8th; c) Sollecito's statement would serve as evidence in his own defence if it were introduced in court, since he claimed in it to be at his apartment between 9pm and at least 1am.

My personal view on the statement is that the police told Sollecito that they had irrefutable evidence that Knox was involved in the murder, and they managed to momentarily persuade him that he had mixed up the nights of October 31st and November 1st. I think he had no reason (or guile) to suspect that the police were lying to him about the evidence against Knox, and that he therefore convinced himself - briefly - that whatever he believed his recollection to be, it must be wrong (after all, the police don't lie, do they...?), and that Knox must have been apart from him on the late evening of November 1st. Hence the momentary story.

However, what I think is neither here nor there in the wider scheme of things. The plain fact is that this statement was not presented in court as evidence against Knox (most likely for the reasons I outlined above). I therefore think that unless and until it is introduced in the appeal trial (and I would be pretty confident that it won't be), it's not relevant to a discussion of whether Knox and/or Sollecito should be acquitted or convicted.

 

[bolint]

It is in fact by far the best option for Knox and Sollecito if they remain silent at pretty much all times during the judicial process. You seem to be presenting it as some sort of game that they were playing, but any half-decent lawyer would have instructed Knox and Sollecito to remain silent. This is particularly true in this case, since Knox and Sollecito could end up tying themselves up in knots during any cross-examination, on account of things they might have said and done in the days after the murder.

Note that I'm not suggesting that they have anything to hide: I'm only suggesting that a skilled prosecutor could easily get them to tie themselves up or even contradict themselves, and that wouldn't make them look good in front of the court. Being a defendant in a murder trial is an extremely stressful and extreme experience for nearly anyone, and it's entirely possible for people who have absolutely nothing to hide to make themselves look shifty or mendacious if they choose to testify in their own defence. This is an extremely well-documented issue, and it's why defence lawyers rarely advise their clients to testify - unless their testimony is vital to their defence (alibi, or other provable information that mitigates against their guilt).

The only possible exception is the particular rule in Italian courts that defendants can make "spontaneous declarations" at any point. These declarations are not subject to any cross-examination, and can also be carefully worded in advance. That's why we've seen Knox make a number of such declarations, but not formally take the stand to give evidence in her own defence.

Even if he doesn't take the stand or give spontaneous statements to the court, he could give an explanation any time in a statement or open letter in which he faces, not avoids, the problems and obvious contradictions, untrue claims in his earlier statements.

Three years were enough only for making sporadic exclamations: "How surreal this is!"

 

[LondonJohn]

Yes. Matteini is the only source of a vague claim.
Raffaele then went on to spend 3 years in the jail, and he sat through the trial without repeating it.

He corrected the carabiniere call paradox, remembered the terrible experience of his barefoot prep walk, exchanged smiles and glances with Amanda, but for some reason he did not say "this brave young lady was always with me that night".

Why?

I really don't think you understand court processes very well, and why it's generally ill-advised for defendants to do anything other than remain silent during their trial.

You also seem to be overlooking the fact that both Knox's and Sollecito's defence lawyers repeatedly made the point during the first trial that their clients asserted that they were in Sollecito's apartment during the entire period in which the murder might have taken place. It was not necessary for Sollecito to make his own statements to the same effect.

In addition, it would have been somewhat unwise of the defence to even raise the issue of Sollecito's brief belief (and alleged statement to that effect) that he and Knox and been apart during 9pm and 1am on the 1st/2nd November. As I outlined above, the prosecution had good reasons not to bring up this issue either. I think both sides were content to completely overlook what Sollecito may have said in his police interview of the 5th November, with very good reason.

 

[Katody Matrass]

I can't imagine a scenario in which he is less guilty than what he has already admitted so I don't know why he would confess more, let alone fully.

For the reasons I stated. If refusing to talk or lying in court could make him less eligible for early release, then why not simply confess? So far he kept to his ridiculous "toilet" excuse. Penance and reconciliation would add points to his "good behavior" score.

That would be amazing, but it is highly unlikely. Especially that so far they have not spent much effort in pleading him.
Silently surviving Rudy's testimony is a more probable strategy.
It is enough to recall the preliminary trial. All three were there passively enjoying the lawyers' clashing and then withdrawing into their cells.

So far they often reacted with spontaneous declarations. I'm quite sure they will (at least) do so to any lies Guede tries to repeat.

 

[bolint]

My personal view on the statement is that the police told Sollecito that they had irrefutable evidence that Knox was involved in the murder, and they managed to momentarily persuade him that he had mixed up the nights of October 31st and November 1st. I think he had no reason (or guile) to suspect that the police were lying to him about the evidence against Knox, and that he therefore convinced himself - briefly - that whatever he believed his recollection to be, it must be wrong (after all, the police don't lie, do they...?), and that Knox must have been apart from him on the late evening of November 1st. Hence the momentary story.

Well, even if Raffaele was caught in a maelstrom of sophisticated police gambits for a few hours and fell victim of erronous recollections, he could have easily corrected and explained these mistakes thereby demolishing the prosecution's case.

 

[LondonJohn]

Even if he doesn't take the stand or give spontaneous statements to the court, he could give an explanation any time in a statement or open letter in which he faces, not avoids, the problems and obvious contradictions, untrue claims in his earlier statements.

Three years were enough only for making sporadic exclamations: "How surreal this is!"

Ugghhhh. As I said before, even if spontaneous declarations are allowed (as they are in Italy), it's still potentially unwise for a defendant to engage in such actions. All the judicial panel needs to know is that the defendant has pleaded not-guilty - so by definition the defendant claims that (s)he did not commit the crime. Once that is known, the judicial panel would necessarily regard most unprovable statements made by a defendant to be nothing more than self-serving and in line with the not-guilty plea.

Look at it this way: If Sollecito had stood up in court (or written a letter etc) stating "Amanda was with me all that night, I promise you all! Neither of us had anything to do with it!! Please believe me!!!", why would this have any upside for him (or Knox)? After all, the judicial panel already know that this is Sollecito's position - there is in fact only potential downside for him if he says or writes anything which could possibly be construed as mendacious or shifty in any way.

I think that Sollecito's lawyers probably gave him very strongly-phrased - and correct - advice not to talk or write about the case to anyone (including his own family) while the trial process is ongoing. One need only look at the "prison diaries" fiasco to see just how much damage a defendant can get into by committing their thoughts to paper or any other form of record. I also think that Knox's lawyers either decided that spontaneous declarations were acceptable in her case (advice with which I would disagree), or that Knox disregarded her lawyers' advice to remain totally silent.

Believe me, if you were ever arrested, charged and tried for a serious criminal offence - whether you'd committed the offence or not - you would be very well advised (in nearly every circumstance) not to offer testimony in your own defence, and you'd retrospectively thank your lawyer for giving you such advice.

 

[LondonJohn]

Well, even if Raffaele was caught in a maelstrom of sophisticated police gambits for a few hours and fell victim of erronous recollections, he could have easily corrected and explained these mistakes thereby demolishing the prosecution's case.

Err..... he did. In Matteini's courtroom. And to his lawyers, who in turn relayed his version of events to the court in the first trial.

 

[bolint]

LondonJohn:

"I really don't think you understand court processes very well, and why it's generally ill-advised for defendants to do anything other than remain silent during their trial.

You also seem to be overlooking the fact that both Knox's and Sollecito's defence lawyers repeatedly made the point during the first trial that their clients asserted that they were in Sollecito's apartment during the entire period in which the murder might have taken place. It was not necessary for Sollecito to make his own statements to the same effect.

In addition, it would have been somewhat unwise of the defence to even raise the issue of Sollecito's brief belief (and alleged statement to that effect) that he and Knox and been apart during 9pm and 1am on the 1st/2nd November. As I outlined above, the prosecution had good reasons not to bring up this issue either. I think both sides were content to completely overlook what Sollecito may have said in his police interview of the 5th November, with very good reason."

In court may be. Let that be the problem of the court and the prosecution.

But I don't see any reason why they could not explain their reasons for the public.
A simple, clean, sincere letter, approved by lawyers, would be much more effective then any PR firm's output.

If they are innocent, of course.

If they are not, then indeed the best option is what you recommend and what they do.

 

[Matthew Best]

A simple, clean, sincere letter, approved by lawyers, would be much more effective then any PR firm's output.

If they are innocent, of course.

If they are not, then indeed the best option is what you recommend and what they do.

I don't see why it makes any difference. If it's the best option, isn't it the best option regardless of whether they are innocent or guilty?

 

[pilot padron]

Oh dear redux

You don't see how this contradicts Sollecito's alleged statement to the police on 5th November, in which he and Knox were out and about until 9pm, at which point he left Knox and returned to his apartment?

Oh Dear

Of course, I certainly agree with alacrity that the *plethora* of 'contradictory statements' from Knox and Sollecito, even if you here prefer to spin them as 'alleged' is indeed a problem for the Defense as well as those here presenting arguments to champion innocence and others simply arguing with cheerleading and/or piling on.

Oh dear, yes, it was indeed very difficult for Knox and Sollecito to give just one non contradictory statement to answer that oh so horrid and third world interrogatory inquisition of: "Where were you when the murder occurred?".

At latest count, Amanda's has at least three (not alleged, but actual) 'contradictory versions' of answers.
This, as cited in frustration by her *lead* attorney who says he also therefore has difficulty finding 'truth'.
Others have cited six versions from Amanda and at least three from Raffaele.

Of course Amanda adds credibility later by telling the world that these were 'the best truths she can think of'

And Raffie adds credibility when he tells the third world water boarders later that his first version was indeed rubbish.
He continues with the convincing addendum that he only told them this contradictory rubbish version to protect Amanda (whom he later implies he wishes had never met).

Yes, I think everyone even without resorting to communications engineering sees the existence, reasons for and most importantly the implications of these *actual* statements that contain 'contradictory versions'.

But oh dear, yes, some must fall back here to argue by endlessly embracing innocence in all things and espouse the easily shown as false spin that these contradictory statements were all 'alleged', and/or they are meaningless, and/or misinterpreted and/or misunderstood, and/or imagined, and/or illegally obtained, and/or ....ad nauseam

 

[Matthew Best]

As I've said before, it is a hallmark of the so-called "guilters" (for want of a better phrase) that they put much stock in the conflicting statements of Knox & Sollecito, and a hallmark of the "innocenters" that they tend to put more stock in the other evidence.

I have no idea why that is.

 

[bolint]

Ugghhhh. As I said before, even if spontaneous declarations are allowed (as they are in Italy), it's still potentially unwise for a defendant to engage in such actions. All the judicial panel needs to know is that the defendant has pleaded not-guilty - so by definition the defendant claims that (s)he did not commit the crime. Once that is known, the judicial panel would necessarily regard most unprovable statements made by a defendant to be nothing more than self-serving and in line with the not-guilty plea.

Look at it this way: If Sollecito had stood up in court (or written a letter etc) stating "Amanda was with me all that night, I promise you all! Neither of us had anything to do with it!! Please believe me!!!", why would this have any upside for him (or Knox)? After all, the judicial panel already know that this is Sollecito's position - there is in fact only potential downside for him if he says or writes anything which could possibly be construed as mendacious or shifty in any way.

I think that Sollecito's lawyers probably gave him very strongly-phrased - and correct - advice not to talk or write about the case to anyone (including his own family) while the trial process is ongoing. One need only look at the "prison diaries" fiasco to see just how much damage a defendant can get into by committing their thoughts to paper or any other form of record. I also think that Knox's lawyers either decided that spontaneous declarations were acceptable in her case (advice with which I would disagree), or that Knox disregarded her lawyers' advice to remain totally silent.

Believe me, if you were ever arrested, charged and tried for a serious criminal offence - whether you'd committed the offence or not - you would be very well advised (in nearly every circumstance) not to offer testimony in your own defence, and you'd retrospectively thank your lawyer for giving you such advice.

You always argue from the trial point of view.
The trial is a mixture of inadmissible evidence, exercising the right to silence, Curatolo, DNA reports, lost hairs, expert reviews, etc.
All this boils down to a sentencing and then you have it.


I'm more interested in what made Raffaele claim even for a fraction of a moment that Amanda was not with him.
He was not beaten, he was not tortured for the famous "54 hours".

Well, I start to think if he had fallen into the hands of the frightful female interrogators of Perugia, he would even have confessed to be Lord Lucan.

 

[LondonJohn]

Oh Dear

Of course, I certainly agree with alacrity that the *plethora* of 'contradictory statements' from Knox and Sollecito, even if you here prefer to spin them as 'alleged' is indeed a problem for the Defense as well as those here presenting arguments to champion innocence and others simply arguing with cheerleading and/or piling on.

Oh dear, yes, it was indeed very difficult for Knox and Sollecito to give just one non contradictory statement to answer that oh so horrid and third world interrogatory inquisition of: "Where were you when the murder occurred?".

At latest count, Amanda's has at least three (not alleged, but actual) 'contradictory versions' of answers.
This, as cited in frustration by her *lead* attorney who says he also therefore has difficulty finding 'truth'.
Others have cited six versions from Amanda and at least three from Raffaele.

Of course Amanda adds credibility later by telling the world that these were 'the best truths she can think of'

And Raffie adds credibility when he tells the third world water boarders later that his first version was indeed rubbish.
He continues with the convincing addendum that he only told them this contradictory version to protect Amanda (whom he later implies he wishes had never met).

Yes, I think everyone even without resorting to communications engineering sees the existence, reasons for and most importantly the implications of these 'contradictory versions'.

But oh dear, yes, some must fall back here to argue by endlessly embracing innocence in all things and espouse the easily shown as false spin that these contradictory statements were all 'alleged', and/or they are meaningless, and/or misinterpreted and/or misunderstood, and/or imagined, and/or illegally obtained, and/or ....ad nauseam

So, pilot padron, try answering this simple question: why wasn't this alleged statement from Sollecito's interrogation on the 5th November ever apparently introduced in the first trial of Knox and Sollecito before Massei's court? Don't you think that the prosecution might have introduced it either as evidence against Knox or as evidence of Sollecito's conflicting versions of events? All I'm asking for is a good reason why Massei's court never apparently heard that Sollecito had made a brief (and retracted) claim that Knox and he were not together between 9pm and 1am. Can you do that?

Oh dear, oh dear, oh dear.

Oh dear.

 

[LondonJohn]

You always argue from the trial point of view.
The trial is a mixture of inadmissible evidence, exercising the right to silence, Curatolo, DNA reports, lost hairs, expert reviews, etc.
All this boils down to a sentencing and then you have it.


I'm more interested in what made Raffaele claim even for a fraction of a moment that Amanda was not with him.
He was not beaten, he was not tortured for the famous "54 hours".

Well, I start to think if he had fallen into the hands of the frightful female interrogators of Perugia, he would have even confessed to be Lord Lucan.

No: you asked why Sollecito did not speak or write about this issue in court or leading up to the trial. I supplied an answer as to why (in my opinion) Sollecito was right not to talk about it.

I also gave my view on how & why Sollecito came to make this alleged statement in the first place (see my post from about an hour ago). you may agree or disagree with my view, but I think it makes sense and is reasonable.

 

[bolint]

So far they often reacted with spontaneous declarations.

Those spontaneous statements were rather sporadic

I'm quite sure they will (at least) do so to any lies Guede tries to repeat

Yes.
The problem is what will they do if Guede happens to try tell the truth.