Continuation Part 3 - Discussion of the Amanda Knox case

[LondonJohn]

In fairness to Rolf, he was just using it as an example of how a deviation from normality could hypothetically work against Raffaele. I don't think he meant to claim that exceptional heights are themselves evidence of a similarly exceptional T_lag in Meredith's case. (It was a very slight bit of evidence for me in that direction only because I hadn't been fully aware of the extent of height variation; however it is more or less canceled out by the observation that the extreme heights in question are due to specific abnormalities.)

True to a point. The real blame lies with the author of the actual piece - John D Cook - who signally fails to understand why height distributions have such strange anomalies at either end of the curve: he merely ascribes it to the theory that the normal distribution model may underestimate the probability of rare events at the margins. Besides the point that his is a nonsense theory when applied to a statistically-significant sample, it's not even applicable in the case of human height distribution. If you were to measure the heights of 5 million random adult men or women, you'd still see the recognisable strange small peaks at either tail end of the normal curve. This is not the black swan in action: it's nothing more than the addition of people with genetic/medical anomalies into the "normal" (for want of a better word) population.

 

[Mary_H]

Actually, I was thinking of the jailhouse conversation where she seems to want to tell the truth and her parents shut her up, but now you mention it, she should have retracted the accusation. She didn't. It looks for all the world she would be hoping that he would go down for it. Amanda Marie Knox is solely responsible for Lumumba's arrest

Then why was Amanda Marie Knox not allowed to be solely responsible for Patrick's release? If her words the morning of the 6th were enough to get him arrested, then why were her words the evening of the 6th not enough to get him out? Please explain.

 

[Mary_H]

Not at all. It is clear they had their omerta of 3. They began by taking pains not to implicate one another.

? According to the clean-up theory, Amanda and Raffaele took pains to implicate Rudy.

 

[Mary_H]

Hi BoT,
So you believe that Amanda Knox and Raffaele Sollecito were already covering Rudy Guede on the day of Nov. 2nd, 2007?And that they continued to do so again and again.
Do you think that they might have known that Rudy Guede split town and bolted to Germany?
You believe that even on the night of the last interrogation they were covering for Rudy Guede still? Surely you know that interrogation that had to happen on the night of Nov. 5th/6th was because Amanda's Mom was arriving in town the next day, and this was the interrogation where Amanda "'buckled and made an admission of facts that we knew were correct, and from that we were able to bring them all in"...

Have you ever been asked a lot of questions by police?,
-(If so, did they speak your own native language, by the way?),
Where you young, naive or were you a street wisend guy or gal who could hold their own with the cops as they asked questions? Ever been questioned by the police while stoned or heck, even under the influence of a few beers or hard alcohol? What about while under the influence of coke, LSD or any other hard drug? I have, it ain't fun. I have dealt with a few cops while under the influence of, ahummm, party-ables. I learned a long time ago to act as normal as possble and just tell 'em the truth, and continue to do so again and again and get the heck away from them ASAP. Split, Leave, Vaminos.

Many, many years ago, in days of youth long past, I've even had a squad car pull up, with guns drawn, on a coupla friends and I, who were doin' lines in the back of my old Plymouth Valiant while parked at a Chevron gas station where another buddy worked the graveyard shift. And I didn't go to jail nor my friends, for the cops were lookin' for someone who had just robbed a grocery store and my hispanic buddy just happened to look like 1 of the suspects descriptions, even wearin' the same red color sweatshirt. Yikes, that was nerve racking, to say the least! The last thing a person high on anything, especially stoned, as Amanda and Raffaele was the night of Nov. 5th/6th, wants to do is deal with the cops. Especially if that person senses the cops are getting aggitated, suspicious and impatient with the persons responses. Wouldn't you agree?

So let me ask you another question, since you seem to believe the un-taped statement that the cops later reported-(you know, these were the same cops who couldn't correctly count that there were only 7 shoe rings on Raffaele's Nike Airforce 1 sneakers that he was wearing that night of interrogation, but instead mistakenly thought they were the 11 shoe rings that were found from the bloody shoeprint near Meredith after her murder was discovered, etc) -
that Amanda Knox said "He's bad! I'm scared of him!".
You actually believe that Amanda was still covering for Rudy Guede when she said Patrick did it? Why? What are the deep ties that bind these 2, opps, I mean 3 young people together?

There is no common tie between these 2, nor heck, even 3.
Amanda and Rudy were not in some gang, such as what I've associated with nor my 1st girlfriend was in.
As far as I can tell, Amanda and Rudy were not sleeping together, nor was Raffaele sleeping with Rudy, you know "to experience extreme sensations, intense sexual relations" etc.
Nor were they life long buddy - buddies, who grew up next to each other. Nor did they live next door and hang out often together like the 2 guys who finally, were correctly arrested by the L.A.P.D.for recently beating that guy to near death in the Dodgers/Giants baseball game here in L.A. that has been in the news lately.

So why did Amanda cover for a guy that she barely knew?
It would have been sooo easy to say that "It was Rudy Guede who did it! I saw him, he killed Meredith and then masturbated as he watched her die.
I am afraid of him, that what he did to Meredith, he might do to me too." Help me, please!"

Why blame Patrick,
a guy who gave her, a newbie in town, a job and who paid her wages?

I'm a guy, with a bit of streetwise experience, much, much more so than Amanda Knox or Raffaele Sollecito and probably you too. And I gotta tell you something. If I was there that night, I would have been very,very afraid of a guy who could actually take a knife and shove it again and again into a young womans neck with blood spurting everywhere. Wouldn't you? And I say this even with more than a few bloody fist fights under my belt and seeing a few knife fights happen. You ever been out partyin' withh the boyz and another car pulls up, they get out and people start brawlin'? A knife get's pulled out and your buddy "Block" got stabbed? Real life is a lot gnarlier than sittin' at a keyboard typing your thoughts, especially if you aren't experienced. So I'll tell ya this, if the crap was hitting the fan, so to say, and the cops were houndin' me and questioning me, again, and again, and again, I would turn on this person, 1 who could stab a young woman in the neck again and again, in a heartbeat. Especially if I were stoned. Wouldnt you?

If Amanda truly was afraid, I would think that she would have been extremely fearfull of what Rudy had done, and that she too might be next, because she was a witness.

So why again was she afraid of Patrick, but not Rudy?
Hmmm, I wonder...
RW

Thanks for the refreshing dose of reality, as usual, RW.

 

[Mary_H]

According to Amanda, she was led to believe that Patrick was the person that murdered Meredith so of course she is going to think that he is bad and she is going to be afraid of him. So yes, that statement is 100% compatible with Amanda telling the truth and thanks to the prosecutions neglect in preserving a recording of that interrogation, you have no proof that it isn't.

According to my understanding, the report that Amanda made that statement was based on hearsay from a cop and is not documented. Amanda did say in her trial testimony that she became afraid of Patrick after she found out from the cops that he was their prime suspect, but I don't think there is a record of her actually saying, "He's bad!" etc.

 

[Mary_H]

You only find DNA in places you test for it, the only way anyone finds out is if it is reported publicly. The Polizia Scientifica did the majority of their testing in the murder room, they found absolutely nothing of Amanda yet numerous traces of Rudy Guede including on Meredith's clothes and inside her.

Finding Amanda's DNA in the rest of the house would hardly be suspicious, nor would it even be all that suspicious to find Rudy Guede's outside the murder room being as it is indeed possible he might have visited, thus would 'prove' nothing. Thus why would anyone spend all that much time looking for it?

There was an article in the first year -- it may even have been by Barbie Nadeau -- suggesting the author asked one of the investigators why Amanda's fingerprints were not found in her bedroom, on her books and guitar. The response was a stammering, "it is up to the investigators to decide where to look for evidence," or something like that.

In other words, the rumor that none of Amanda's fingerprints or DNA were found in the apartment is completely false.

 

[bucketoftea]

Do you believe rudy's story, then? That he had a date with Meredith? That he didn't even participate in the murder?

I don't believe he had a date with Meredith, I don't believe he didn't participate, but I do believe the confrontation between the two women.
"Drugged-up tart" is authentically a British term.

 

[snook1]

I don't believe he had a date with Meredith, I don't believe he didn't participate, but I do believe the confrontation between the two women.
"Drugged-up tart" is authentically a British term.

Did you hear Guede'e English? Do you seriously believe he would be able to remember and repeat that term word by word? I don't.

There was no confrontation, there was no fight. Amanda's bank account was loaded, Raffaele was rich.

Rudy Guede had a record of breaking in through a window. Go figure.

 

[bucketoftea]

You have formed your opinion by reading the opinion of your group regarding the conduct of Amanda's parents. The opinion of your group is based on reporting from yellow journalists Vogt and Nadeau. You don't know Amanda's parents. You have no idea what they are going through. I would suggest staying away from topics that you know absolutely nothing about.

I refer to what I have seen with my own eyes and heard with my own ears.

Whatever they are going through, I promise you is not as bad as for many, many others. The Kerchers spring to mind.

 

[Katody Matrass]

I don't believe he had a date with Meredith, I don't believe he didn't participate, but I do believe the confrontation between the two women.
"Drugged-up tart" is authentically a British term.

Hmmm.. I thought the skype conversation was in Italian. How sure are you he used that "British term", and not the translator?

 

[Katody Matrass]

I see that the "lies" are now promoted to the most important evidence position.

It's interesting that the only proven liars are Mignini, Comodi and the cops.

 

[LondonJohn]

I don't believe he had a date with Meredith, I don't believe he didn't participate, but I do believe the confrontation between the two women.
"Drugged-up tart" is authentically a British term.

You're selectively choosing which parts of Guede's story to believe and which parts to disbelieve. And it appears that you are making the distinction based on no rational reasoning whatsoever. Why do you believe certain parts and not others?

 

[RoseMontague]

I don't believe he had a date with Meredith, I don't believe he didn't participate, but I do believe the confrontation between the two women.
"Drugged-up tart" is authentically a British term.

Rudy said that in English?

 

[bucketoftea]

Did you hear Guede'e English? Do you seriously believe he would be able to remember and repeat that term word by word? I don't.

There was no confrontation, there was no fight. Amanda's bank account was loaded, Raffaele was rich.

Rudy Guede had a record of breaking in through a window. Go figure.

I do.

 

[LondonJohn]

I see that the "lies" are now promoted to the most important evidence position.

It's interesting that the only proven liars are Mignini, Comodi and the cops.

And considering that the 1.45am and 5.45am Knox statements are totally inadmissible as evidence against her (with good reason), we're left with a confused "gift" in which Knox exhibits her certainty that she's extremely confused, and that she's now pretty sure that she was at Sollecito's all night.

And why is she confused? Because the police told her that they had incontrovertible proof that she was at the cottage with Lumumba when he murdered Meredith (and they say also that they have proof that Lumumba murdered Meredith). The police have then managed to convince her (temporarily) that a) she's suppressed her memory of these traumatic events* - which is why she can't remember all this, b) Lumumba is a dangerous and violent man - and not only that, but a man who might now come after Amanda as one of the few witnesses to his dreadful deeds, and c) Amanda needs to help the police capture and convict the dangerous killer Lumumba as not only a public service, but also for the Kercher family and for her own personal safety.

I am utterly convinced that this (or something very close to this) is what took place in that Perugia police HQ on the night of 5th/6th November 2007. In addition, it's farcical to suggest that the police didn't consider Knox a suspect before she even sat down for the interrogation that night (again, witness De Felice's press conference statement for absolute proof that the police considered Knox a suspect in advance of the interrogation).She should therefore have been reclassified as a suspect before she was asked a single question, and afforded the requisite rights**. And, incidentally, whether she was a suspect or not, it's incomprehensible that an interview of this sort, taking place in a major regional police HQ, in a major (and extremely high-profile) murder case, was not recorded as a matter of course. The perugia police are either liars or incompetents when it comes to the recording of the interview. My money's on the first option.

* And we know this for a fact, thanks to the testimony of police interpreter Anna Donnino, who helpfully told Massei's court that she had actively participated in the interrogation by suggesting to Knox that she (Knox) might have had a traumatic memory loss, by recounting her own (Donnino's) experience of when she broke her ankle and had a total memory loss of the whole events surrounding the accident.

** As I've pointed out before, the European Criminal Bar Association's report on Italy explicitly notes that it's pretty common for police to deliberately fail to reclassify as "official" suspects people whom they suspect of committing offences. The ECBA view is that this is done chiefly in order to continue to deny the suspects access to a lawyer in interviews.

 

[Kevin_Lowe]

The answer is in the thread already (probably several times). Please feel free to read it and don't ask people to spoon-feed you.

I don't care for this argument: As a matter of fact Fiona tried it out on me when I first entered this thread. In that case when I investigated it turned out that the issues she was trying to pretend were already settled in her favour had not been settled satisfactorily at all. Oddly enough when I pressed her on the issue it didn't take her long to do a bunk. Some people feel that was a loss to the forum - they are entitled to their opinion.

The simple fact is that a thread hundreds of pages long with no indexing or other way to easily track down the most relevant posts to any given topic is not a very user-friendly reference source and that asking questions of the more knowledgeable posters is the best and fastest way to get information on a specific topic.

If Skwinty has no genuine interest in participating constructively and is just here to troll, which is of course possible, then educating him would be pointless. However if you feel Skwinty is a troll with nothing to contribute to a serious discussion the appropriate response would be to ignore him, not to tell him not to ask for spoon-feeding.

 

[Matthew Best]

I don't care for this argument: As a matter of fact Fiona tried it out on me when I first entered this thread.

Actually I don't much like it either, and I didn't like it when Fulcanelli kept saying it to me in the early days of the thread.

If Skwinty has no genuine interest in participating constructively and is just here to troll, which is of course possible, then educating him would be pointless.

You might think that. I couldn't possibly comment.

However if you feel Skwinty is a troll with nothing to contribute to a serious discussion the appropriate response would be to ignore him, not to tell him not to ask for spoon-feeding.

You're right, of course.

 

[AmyStrange]

So sad really...

And why is she confused? Because the police told her that they had incontrovertible proof that she was at the cottage with Lumumba when he murdered Meredith (and they say also that they have proof that Lumumba murdered Meredith). The police have then managed to convince her (temporarily) that a) she's suppressed her memory of these traumatic events* - which is why she can't remember all this, b) Lumumba is a dangerous and violent man - and not only that, but a man who might now come after Amanda as one of the few witnesses to his dreadful deeds, and c) Amanda needs to help the police capture and convict the dangerous killer Lumumba as not only a public service, but also for the Kercher family and for her own personal safety.

That makes perfect sense LondonJohn, plus the use of the word "spontaneously" in her "declaration" (who says that in "real" life?) just screams police coaching (trying to pretend like she isn't a suspect yet by hinting at the "spontaneous declaration" rule), and your question to BOT about the press conference the next day (which he/she still hasn't answered adequately) and what was said about what they knew to be true, and also the fact that (w/o any kind of investigation) went out and arrested Patrick etc etc.

It is ALL circumstantial evidence that they thought Patrick was guilty and tried to get proof by making suggestions to Amanda that she would never leave that room (get water, food, or ever use the lav again) until she admitted this.

How can you claim to be a critical thinker and not consider this a possibility?

Dave

-

 

[christianahannah]

Hmmm.. I thought the skype conversation was in Italian. How sure are you he used that "British term", and not the translator?

I do not know if Rudy used the term in the skype conversation, however, he used a similar term/phrase which he wrote in his diary (the diary being written in his native language) and I am not certain it translates exactly to the British phrase).

 

[LondonJohn]

I do not know if Rudy used the term in the skype conversation, however, he used a similar term/phrase which he wrote in his diary (the diary being written in his native language) and I am not certain it translates exactly to the British phrase).

And therein lies the conundrum. Consider the following:

1) IIRC, Guede had only a very, very cursory knowledge of English at the time of the murder.

2) If Amanda was arguing with Meredith, then such an argument would absolutely certainly have been conducted in English. And not only that, it would very likely have consisted of very fast-paced talking/shouting, and lots of colloquialisms.

3) It's therefore somewhat unlikely that Guede would even have been able to decipher most of what was being said, far less decipher a very unusual (to non-British ears) idiom such as "drugged-up tart" - especially as it's most likely that Guede's exposure to the English language would have almost exclusively been via American pop culture, music and TV.

4) Therefore, to suggest that Guede accurately heard and understood this phrase, translated it into Italian for his diary, and managed to remember it verbatim, seems to me to be beyond rational belief.

If Guede had simply claimed to have heard Amanda and Meredith arguing, that would have been plausible. But his need to add further details in an attempt to bolster his credibility has - to my mind - completely backfired in this case. In my opinion, Guede is lying on this issue.