Continuation Part 3 - Discussion of the Amanda Knox case

[Fine]

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.

____________________

John,

According to Rudy, in his German prison diary, Meredith is supposed to have said it to Rudy, in Italian, when her money was discovered to be missing, before Amanda showed up at the cottage that night. Rudy says in his diary that he's quoting Meredith's exact words. The Italian phrase has been translated in several ways, "drugged-up tart," "doper whore," etc.

///

 

[davefoc]

....
Basically, the prosecutors and judge were convinced that the three defendants worked together, and nothing the three defendants said changed their minds.

Thanks to everybody who responded to my questions about how Guede's testimony squared with the prosecutor's theory.

Based on the responses I now understand the situation to be different than what I had assumed. It now seems like Guede's testimony is hardly relevant to the case against Knox and Sollecito because it doesn't support the prosecution's theory or the defense theory. His claim seems to be that two people that he didn't know were in the apartment after he had sex with Kercher but before she was murdered and he now recognizes those people to be Knox and Sollecito.

The prosecutor seems to have completely rejected much of this claim since he successfully prosecuted Guede for the murder. And obviously Guede's claim that Knox and Sollecito were there is counter to the defense theory of the case.

Did Guede testify in the first trial?

As an aside, the media's reporting of the Guede claims and testimony seems a bit unfortunate for Knox and Sollecito. Based on a simple understanding of what Guede is reported to be claiming it sounds like he is claiming a conspiracy with Knox and Sollecito when in fact he's claiming that they were there and acted without him to commit the murders, something which seems to be wildly unlikely given the evidence. I notice the attorney for Kercher's parents trumpeted the testimony as being evidence of the guilt of Knox and Sollecito. Not very nice given that everybody agrees that a significant portion of Guede's testimony is known to be false.

 

[komponisto]

Did Guede testify in the first trial?

No; only in the appeal (and then only on the narrow issue of whether he had told other inmates Knox and Sollecito were innocent, as some of them have claimed).

As an aside, the media's reporting of the Guede claims and testimony seems a bit unfortunate for Knox and Sollecito. Based on a simple understanding of what Guede is reported to be claiming it sounds like he is claiming a conspiracy with Knox and Sollecito when in fact he's claiming that they were there and acted without him to commit the murders, something which seems to be wildly unlikely given the evidence. I notice the attorney for Kercher's parents trumpeted the testimony as being evidence of the guilt of Knox and Sollecito. Not very nice given that everybody agrees that a significant portion of Guede's testimony is known to be false.

No kidding!

 

[RandyN]

Don't you find it odd that Amanda lived in that house, and yet they found very little evidence of her DNA?

Witches don’t shed DNA...or maybe the CSI team did a lousy job. BTW the crack CSI team found no Filomena DNA in her own bedroom. I wonder why that is?

 

[RandyN]

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

Huh....Here I always thought that duty belonged to the Perugia police department. One would think with that much power she could have kept herself from being arrested. Now we find out AK has police powers and everything. Does she have a shiny gun and snappy blue uniform w/beret too?

 

[RandyN]

So Amanda lied when she admitted her presence in the house and that she covered her ears so she could not hear Meredith screaming while bleeding to death.


Good luck sneaking that one past this judge....what with that bothersome Supreme Court decision and all.

 

[theRealBob]

The perugia police are either liars or incompetents when it comes to the recording of the interview. My money's on the first option.

.

The Perugian police are just liars full stop.

So are the various members of the prosecution.

We witness this at every single solitary turn of events. They've totally screwed up a murder investigation that has made world wide news because of the hilariously incomprehensible outline of the murder they gave us.

They just screwed up then lied ALL the time.

 

[Mary_H]

Thanks to everybody who responded to my questions about how Guede's testimony squared with the prosecutor's theory.

Based on the responses I now understand the situation to be different than what I had assumed. It now seems like Guede's testimony is hardly relevant to the case against Knox and Sollecito because it doesn't support the prosecution's theory or the defense theory. His claim seems to be that two people that he didn't know were in the apartment after he had sex with Kercher but before she was murdered and he now recognizes those people to be Knox and Sollecito.

The prosecutor seems to have completely rejected much of this claim since he successfully prosecuted Guede for the murder. And obviously Guede's claim that Knox and Sollecito were there is counter to the defense theory of the case.

Did Guede testify in the first trial?

As an aside, the media's reporting of the Guede claims and testimony seems a bit unfortunate for Knox and Sollecito. Based on a simple understanding of what Guede is reported to be claiming it sounds like he is claiming a conspiracy with Knox and Sollecito when in fact he's claiming that they were there and acted without him to commit the murders, something which seems to be wildly unlikely given the evidence. I notice the attorney for Kercher's parents trumpeted the testimony as being evidence of the guilt of Knox and Sollecito. Not very nice given that everybody agrees that a significant portion of Guede's testimony is known to be false.

I was reflecting on those contradictions when I was answering your post. As you have stated, it becomes very confusing.

I think the key is in the first sentence of your last paragraph. The images created by the media (many of which were donated by the prosecution) all contributed to the view that the three defendants were guilty, whether it was because they were all in it together or whether it was because they were all lying. The more versions of the story put out there, the worse it looked, and it looked really bad.

Many of us are convinced the Perugian community were enthralled by the media coverage and by the encouragement of both the prosecutors and the judges to find guilty verdicts, creating a mindset that made it impossible at the time to defy the court's favored scenario.

 

[RandyN]

Hey there Randy....

Good digest on the contradictions. So polite for a gang banger too.

Well, not only do we share a name but, and this is very important...the best car I ever owned was a 1968 Plymouth Belvedere...ugly blue green with a slant 6 and three on the tree. I put like 325,000 miles on that thing and in those days cars rarely made it to 100,000... options included an AM radio....that’s it.

I wish there was more real evidence to argue about in this case but I think its over. The DNA is gone. Toto is gone. The time of death may be slightly debatable but as far as the prosecutions TOD that is certainly gone...not that it was ever realistic ...everyone knows Mignini made it up to fit Toto's statements...well it kind of fit almost one the 5 or 6 versions anyway.

Quintinvalle is gone....Nara is gone or soon will be anyway. Luminol is gone. Bathmat is gone. Mixed traces are gone. What’s left?

Oh, we certainly have new computer evidence. RS let it slip once in a personal letter that accidentally got posted. Most know about it anyway...the Mac Book Pro has a keyboard light function that turns the keyboard light off and on at set parameters. So for example if no one touches it for say 6 minutes the keyboard light goes out , other wise the light stays on and it indicates active use. It seems this keyboard light logs its activity...

This activity log should make for an interesting day in court when this bit of recovered data is brought up. I recall much human interaction being discussed far beyond the 9:12 or even 9:26 data recovered by the Perugia hard drive burn squad. I vaguely remember something about activity late into the night and past that and well into the next morning....and never with the 6 minute sleep period ever being activated.... I sure wish I would have copied that letter... I’m certain someone has it....or perhaps I just dreamed it all....

Did I mention this keyboard light logs activity? Don’t ask me for a cite ….ask someone else to reveal the letter. I did not copy it. I know there are copies out there though.

Anyway…keep a sharp eye out for the sharks…they don’t call it the Red Coast for nothing. My one encounter with a shark was while snorkeling in Dominican Republic…9 to 12 footer cruised past the whole group and my first reaction was to swim after him because I forgot to snap a picture as he went by. Never did get the shot. Oh then there was the school of sharks that attended my last divorce…I guess that’s way off topic though……

BTW ….I’m looking…I’m fairly certain I once read a translated transcription of RG Skype call…I remember him talking about oral sex etc,,,
One would think this computer might file all these things for me…

 

[davefoc]

Good grief. Is this the "confession" that is the basis of so much Knox slamming on the internet?

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/1570225/Transcript-of-Amanda-Knoxs-note.html

How in the world is this evidence in any way of guilt? Anybody that has followed any discussions of the problems of police interrogations producing false confessions can see a poster child for the practice in that "confession". She's lied to for hours on end and in a state bordering on hallucinogenic after hours of interrogation she's still enough of a critical thinker to be willing to consider possibilities that counter her memories of the events.

It looks to me like the authorities not only implanted false information to get this statement they decided to misinterpret it into a "confession".

 

[Kaosium]

Good grief. Is this the "confession" that is the basis of so much Knox slamming on the internet?

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/1570225/Transcript-of-Amanda-Knoxs-note.html

How in the world is this evidence in any way of guilt? Anybody that has followed any discussions of the problems of police interrogations producing false confessions can see a poster child for the practice in that "confession". She's lied to for hours on end and in a state bordering on hallucinogenic after hours of interrogation she's still enough of a critical thinker to be willing to consider possibilities that counter her memories of the events.

It looks to me like the authorities not only implanted false information to get this statement they decided to misinterpret it into a "confession".

That's the note, she wrote that right after they were done with her, here's the two official statements, both deemed inadmissible by the Italian Supreme Court, though Massei 'overruled' them regarding the calunnia charge for 'accusation' in the first (1:45) statement. That worked out nicely for the prosecution, as they ran it concurrently before the same jury. They also cherry-picked quotes from the note to make it sound like a definite accusation as well.

 

[RWVBWL]

Dave, here is the link for the motivations report from Guede's trial (in Italian). It offers a narrative of Rudy's alleged actions the night of the murder. Amanda and Raffaele are mentioned very little in the document.

Originally, Rudy said that Amanda was not at the cottage the night of the murder. He also said he could not identify the alleged strange man. After four or five months of counsel from his legal representation, he finally specifically named Amanda and Raffaele as the perpetrators.
The prosecution's theory did call for the three defendants to be working together. Massei's motivations from Amanda and Raffaele's trial also calls for the three to be working together. Hence, there is no correlation between Rudy's version of events and the versions described by the prosecutor or the judge.

Rudy did not construct a credible claim that Knox and Sollecito were in the apartment at the time of the crime. That didn't matter, though, because Rudy's testimony did not factor into Amanda and Raffaele's trial, as he was already a convicted murderer by then, which presumably made him a liar, as well.

Basically, the prosecutors and judge were convinced that the three defendants worked together, and nothing the three defendants said changed their minds.

Hi Mary H,
When I earlier read this post of yours,
I thought, wow, what a well written response. I highlighted a part above that I wish to discuss a bit further.

Let's go back in time.
Rudy Guede is busted in Germany and back in Italy. Patrick Lumumba has been set free. Rudy knows that Amanda Knox and Raffaele Sollecito are also in prison for their alleged involvement in Miss Kercher's bloody murder.

If this were true, Rudy would have spilled the details on these 2, I believe. His ties to these 2 are weak, since they are lovers, their intimacy are the ties that bind them together. Rudy is the odd-man out. He must have at least thought that they would turn on him. He knows that he left his poo, as Kevin Lowe calls it, in the toilet. He knows that his prints and DNA is in Meredith's bedroom. He left ample clues to his involvement in Meredith's death.

When he was 1st arrested and brought back to Italy, Rudy had plenty of opportunity to provide the cops with minute detail of what Amanda and Raff did while in Meredith's bedroom that night.

But he did not. Or was that he could not?

What strong ties bind him together to the other 2?

None.

Rudy ran from town because he wanted to save his own rear. So how come he did not just turn on Raff, whom he had never previously met, or Amanda, whom he had smoked out with but once in a group gathering? Why didn't Rudy's own self preservation desire kick in and allow him to snitch on Raff and Amanda? This happens all of the time, someone turns on the others right away when the jig is up and the cops have busted 'em. Heck, I know of a guy who, when busted for moving large quantities of pot, waaay back before there were legal, medicinal marijauna dispenseries here in California, got wired to help save his own rear, so to say. And who then got a serious whoppin', down the road...

With the feces hittin' the fan, so to say,
everyone is usually looking after themselves and their own best interests.*

But it didn't happen in this particular case we discuss.
Why didn't Rudy turn on Amanda and Raff right away when he was arrested and then interrogated? There are no significent ties that bind Rudy to Amanda and Raff.

I believe that Rudy Guede was not joined by Amanda and/or Raffaele the night Meredith Kercher was horribly stabbed to her death. He can not specifically say that Raffaele placed his hand over Meredith's mouth to keep her from screaming as he tried to rip her bra off, and then Amanda stabbed her with a huuuge knife that she pulled from inside her purse. Rudy can not give out any of these small, minute, easily provable details of Amanda Knox's and Raffaele Sollecito's involvement, yet, because he doesn't know these details. This because they haven't been leaked yet by the prosecution. It is not until a few months later is he able to give a vague, slighly detailed story of Raff and Amanda's involvement. Right around when it came time for his own case to start, IIRC. And you know what? People actually believed him!

In my humble opinion, if Rudy, who was allegedly a member of the trio that killed Meredith Kercher, can not, to help save his own hide, state while under interrogation or while in court that Amanda Knox took that huuuge kitchen knife out of her purse and stabbed Meredith to her death, it is because Amanda Knox did not do so. And if Rudy can not state while under interrogation or in court that Raffaele Sollecito did rip off Meredith's bra, it too is because this did not happen, even though the prosecution states otherwise and has convinced many intellegent people of these facts.

Wasn't it these facts that convicted Amanda Knox and Raffaele Sollecito of participation in Meredith Kercher's murder?
Hmmmm...
RW


* - If Rudy can cover for Amanda and Raff's involvement in Miss Kercher's murder, then I can easily see Rudy protecting his real buddies. I bet that Rudy would cover for Giacomo Benedetti, his long time buddy, if they both were up to no good. You might remember Giacomo, he had that 3 hour Skype converstaion with Rudy. It would appear that Rudy trusted Giacomo enough to speak with him for such a long time while on the run.

Giacomo, though did not reciprocate the favor, he snitched on his own buddy, Rudy Guede and had this conversation while at the police station, where it was taped!

Rudy's friend snitched on him since he felt Rudy was involved in Meredith Kercher's horrible, brutal murder.

But Rudy Guede did not snitch on Amanda Knox, whom he barely knew or Raffaele Sollecito, whom he'd never previously met.

It was not until March 26, 2008, nearly 5 months later after Meredith had been murdered, that he told Mignini that Raff was the man he'd seen with the knife in hand the night Meredith was killed and that he heard Amanda's voice outide the cottage after the stabbing...

Sure, Rudy, sure...

 

[Skwinty]

Yes, it's totally probably irrelevant what any of us thinks about this case, in relation to influencing the actual progression and outcome of the case. Your point is? Being irrelevant in that way doesn't make it irrelevant in and of itself, and nor does it make it invalid.

You could make exactly the same point about every single topic discussed on the JREF forums, for that matter. It's irrelevant in the very same way what anyone on JREF thinks about the global financial crisis, or the Palestine problem, or the creationism-in-schools debate, or, or, or...... Have you visited any of these other threads recently and told them that their discussions are all irrelevant?

The fact (whether you like it or not) is that some people enjoy (or gain insight from) discussing any one of these subjects, one of which is the trials of Knox and Sollecito. Your "point" is meaningless. What I score in my round of golf on Saturday is irrelevant to anyone except me (and perhaps my playing partners if we're playing matchplay) - but does that mean it's pointless for me to pick up a golf club?

Crazy.

You are absolutely right. There is nothing wrong with analysing and discussing any topic of your choice as long as you do so within the rules of the MA.

Just as there is nothing wrong with me expressing my opinion. There have been many comments regarding the lack of participation from those who lean towards guilt, yet when they do participate, they are treated with disdain and rudeness.

Sometimes that disdain and rudeness may well be deserved.
It is still irrelevant to the outcome even if people may believe otherwise.

 

[Kevin_Lowe]

You are absolutely right. There is nothing wrong with analysing and discussing any topic of your choice as long as you do so within the rules of the MA.

Just as there is nothing wrong with me expressing my opinion. There have been many comments regarding the lack of participation from those who lean towards guilt, yet when they do participate, they are treated with disdain and rudeness.

Sometimes that disdain and rudeness may well be deserved.
It is still irrelevant to the outcome even if people may believe otherwise.

Did you have anything to contribute with regard to the facts of the Kercher murder?

 

[Charlie Wilkes]

That's the note, she wrote that right after they were done with her, here's the two official statements, both deemed inadmissible by the Italian Supreme Court, though Massei 'overruled' them regarding the calunnia charge for 'accusation' in the first (1:45) statement. That worked out nicely for the prosecution, as they ran it concurrently before the same jury. They also cherry-picked quotes from the note to make it sound like a definite accusation as well.

They browbeat her until she buckled and signed the statements. Here's how the process works:

http://www.friendsofamanda.org/miscellaneous/discovery_false_confession_rocha.flv

 

[Skwinty]

Did you have anything to contribute with regard to the facts of the Kercher murder?

What is so difficult to understand about the word "irrelevant".

I have stated my opinion and you have stated yours.

Both are irrelevant.

Bye.

 

[snook1]

They browbeat her until she buckled and signed the statements. Here's how the process works:

http://www.friendsofamanda.org/miscellaneous/discovery_false_confession_rocha.flv

This video is a must see for everyone that has any doubt whatsoever on why Amanda Knox made rather amusing statements during the interrogation on Nov 5th 2007. Keep in mind that in this video, the police officers and the suspect share the same native language. I can easily imagine the horror that Amanda must have went through on that night.

 

[Kaosium]

They browbeat her until she buckled and signed the statements. Here's how the process works:

http://www.friendsofamanda.org/miscellaneous/discovery_false_confession_rocha.flv

That's what you have to call a 'gross error!' Oops! Wrong continent!

Welcome back Charlie!

 

[PhantomWolf]

Wow, they broke the guy down in 2 hours getting him to acuse people of murder and confess to helping them, when he wasn't even in the country when it happened...

 

[LondonJohn]

They browbeat her until she buckled and signed the statements. Here's how the process works:

http://www.friendsofamanda.org/miscellaneous/discovery_false_confession_rocha.flv

I've also long referenced this extremely interesting (and distressing) piece of video. Notice that the police in this video adopt a similar tactic to the one likely used by the Perugia police on Knox: they don't suggest that Rocha actually committed the murder, but they tell him that they know he was present when the murder was committed by others. This implants into the subject the feeling that by "confessing" they are actually helping the police catch the "real killer(s)".

But the evidence suggests that the Perugia police added an extra trick to their technique: instead of accusing Knox of deliberately withholding the "truth" from them, they suggested that she'd undergone traumatic memory loss. This nasty tactic (in which the interpreter also - incredibly - participated) succeeded in persuading Knox that her own mind was playing tricks on her - especially when the police also told her that they had hard evidence placing both her and Lumumba at the cottage at the time of the murder.

And the other important thing about the Knox "confession/accusation" is that the evidence also strongly suggests that Knox believed that her statement would have few or no negative repercussions for her. It's highly likely that Knox thought that by agreeing with the police suggestion that she had suffered traumatic memory loss, and by therefore agreeing with the police version (for which the police told her they had hard evidence) that she was at the cottage while Lumumba murdered Meredith, she was primarily helping the police to catch Lumumba (and by extension helping the Kercher family gain justice for the killer of their daughter). The text of the statements - particularly the "gift" - bears witness to this, as does the apparent surprise of Knox at being detained after making the first two statements: apparently, the police disingenuously told her that she was being held "for her own protection" until they had taken Lumumba into custody.