Continuation Part 3 - Discussion of the Amanda Knox case

[Mary_H]

Before responding to this post, let me say that I think I have been misreading you. I went back and found where you wrote: "You also believe that they think, while claiming to know nothing about the murder, she should have claimed to know stuff about the murder?"

I understand it when you put it this way. You are right, guilters do not say that Amanda knows nothing about the crime but that she also should have said Patrick is innocent.

They didn't did they? It was the interrogation that did it. After that they had the thing to mignini and then the rambling letter, plus a few odds and sods.

There is a lot of disagreement about whether the police or Amanda brought up the subject of Lumumba. I believe they would not have asked Amanda for her cell phone without already knowing what was on it, but others disagree.

Well, for one thing she didn't know it was recorded, did she? For another, is that the only reading of the recording. My recollection is that the police and PMF have a different reading. Is this the "I was there. I can't lie about it." line, or something else?

The "I was there" comment was from a different jailhouse conversation a week or so later.

To say Amanda's statement about not being at the crime is diminished by the fact that she didn't know it was being recorded is to say that Amanda was fully responsible for getting Patrick off the hook. She wasn't -- she had already done her best and the police were believing only what they wanted to believe. Why don't you question why the police didn't take that recorded conversation and use it to rethink their investigation?

That may very well be, but this is claiming she did assert Patricks innocence rather than claiming that it was impossible for her to do so.

All she could do was say she wasn't there. If that isn't enough to show she was not a reliable witness, I don't know what is.

 

[shuttlt]

How would she know that Patrick was innocent if she was not there?

We can go around again on this or you can agree with your own arguments that she could not know this if she was not there.

This is sufficiently true that I wouldn't quibble with it.

Quite simply, they make this out to be horrible that Amanda did not proclaim his innocence even if she could not possibly know this.

I've still to see anybody actually say that this is what they want. Fiona didn't, Thoughtful didn't, Stilcho didn't. I will PM the machine and make sure and get an answer from him.

What she did do was to cast a whole lot of doubt on her own statements. The fact that the cops ignored this because it didn't fit their version is typical of the entire case.

Yes she did cast doubt, but her gift isn't an undergraduate paper on empiricism. Casting doubt on her statements? She doesn't say "I retract my earlier statements as having no basis" she hedges and says that in her opinion the things she described didn't happen. I thought it was your view that she knew the things she described didn't happen. She knew she didn't see/hear Patrick killing Meredith.

 

[Dan O.]

____________________

Dan,

Ever wonder why the heck Amanda would be signing a DECLARATION at 15:30 (3:30 pm) on November 2nd, the day the murder was discovered? I know Mignini in court said she did so and that it was the only DECLARATION she signed that day. But wouldn't you expect her to have signed a DECLARATION after her interrogation, which---acording to Amanda's email---ran six hours straight from about 15:00 (3:00 pm) til about 21:00 (9:00 pm) on November 2nd? Was Mignini wrong? Was the PMF translation of the court testimony wrong?

///

In Amanda's email she says

"then i sat around in this waiting room wthout having the
chance to leave or eat anything besides vending maschine food (whcih
gave me a hell of a stomache ache) until 530 in the morning. during
this time i received calls from a lot of different people, family
mostly of course, and i also talked with the rest.
...
they told me to be back in at 11am. i went home to raffael's place and
ate something substantial, and passed out.​

Since they are calling her back to continue the next day there will be a later opportunity to sign a statement so they don't have to do it then. In fact, there are several more statements signed by Amanda:

(from Amanda's testimony)

GM: In your preceding declarations, on Nov 2 at 15:30, on Nov 3 at 14:45, then, there was another one, Nov 4, 14:45, and then there's Nov 6, 1:45.​

 

[RoseMontague]

This is sufficiently true that I wouldn't quibble with it.


I've still to see anybody actually say that this is what they want. Fiona didn't, Thoughtful didn't, Stilcho didn't. I will PM the machine and make sure and get an answer from him.


Yes she did cast doubt, but her gift isn't an undergraduate paper on empiricism. Casting doubt on her statements? She doesn't say "I retract my earlier statements as having no basis" she hedges and says that in her opinion the things she described didn't happen. I thought it was your view that she knew the things she described didn't happen. She knew she didn't see/hear Patrick killing Meredith.

PMF is always saying how bad it is that she didn't proclaim his innocence. They are numerous posts to that effect.

I have said I don't subscribe to the false memory scenario but I do believe she was tired and wanted to go home and just agreed with what she perceived they wanted from her and quite possibly was convinced they knew what they were doing and I have no doubt she was scared they were going to put her in jail if she didn't agree with them. She had just been confronted with a broken alibi, she was young and inexperienced and pretty dumb to believe the cops.

 

[shuttlt]

The "I was there" comment was from a different jailhouse conversation a week or so later.

OK. Perhaps I need to go find the wiretap mentioned.

To say Amanda's statement about not being at the crime is diminished by the fact that she didn't know it was being recorded is to say that Amanda was fully responsible for getting Patrick off the hook. She wasn't --

I agree.

she had already done her best and the police were believing only what they wanted to believe.

I disagree. I don't particularly blame her, but the rambling letter was not the best she could do.

Why don't you question why the police didn't take that recorded conversation and use it rethink their investigation?

Well, I'd need to dig out the recorded conversation to answer you fully. I'm willing to believe that the whole thing was such a confused mess by that point that almost nothing she said to her mother was likely to improve her situation.

All she could do was say she wasn't there. If that isn't enough to show she was not a reliable witness, I don't know what is.

She didn't do that in her letter. Perhaps her mother told the papers that is what she had said, in which case that counts for something in my eyes. But equally I don't think I judge her too harshly for not clearing Patrick more completely anyway.

 

[smkovalinksy]

http://www.westseattleherald.com/2011/09/11/news/update-amanda-knox-will-be-freed-says-italian-pro

>They pointed out that it is illegal in Italy for their daughter, who is convicted of murder, to speak to any media unless, and until, she is freed. She has not yet spoken to any press at any time.>

I didnt know Amanda speaking to the media was a crime, in Italy, per this article. So it seems one of the PG, Hate Group members is trying to cause trouble by lying again and propping a fake interview to the media could cause more damage.

The Thanksgiving article is put to the press, obviously not by those who support Amanda and by someone aware it is illegal, I will assume.

So who is the scum, the source of the subsidiary Hate Monger Organization of the PG Inc.?

Who would benefit?

Would the Prosecution/Police stoop so low as to lie, and break the law, and even go so far as to put them self in danger of having charges pressed against them if they are found out.

The MO seems similar to the group that leaked the sex list,....... hmmm?

Access to prison. Access to the media. Aware of the false accusation/false story causing damage to Amanda specifically, not Raffaele. A little anti-Americanism? or just hate for Amanda.

Its also not something, one person alone has done. This is an organized attack of dishonest people, scum against Amanda.

Is it the same party who leaked the sex list?
Most likely. Seems very similar, almost too simialr to not be the same group of lying hater's.

It seems the same "format" same MO of the criminal. Lie+leak to Media= cause Amanda damage, not Raffaele.

And these lying Haters, are really criminals working in police uniforms most likely. People who hate and break the law to "win", wear all kinds of uniforms.
They seem to have access to orchestrate a sex list, false HIV/AIDS test and then leak things to the media.

Someone from the Hate group, who are dishonest and cowardly most likely orchestrated and leaked, the sex list and this failed lie.

My bet is.....Someone from Perugia and closely associated with this trial.



Did they accomplish the damage they seeked to cause?

At this point in the witch hunt, I think it back fired this time. The people aware of this case are more informed. And to someone in the US this interview would be considered nothing. Who wouldnt want to eat Thanksgiving turkey at home. No one from the US therefore woul waste their time on a slanderous article based around eating a dinner at a holiday of Thanksgiving.

Whoever did this is very unfamilair with the US culture.

So this leads me to believe, the Hate Group that bear the article wanted to create damage to Amanda, and this article would only be shocking to those in Italy. Where I believe the Hate Group who has connections to attempt damage, through the media would reside.

It shows someone with power and connections to the media, obviously Anti-Amanda supporters, have a deep bias of hate and will do anything, even break the law to do harm to Amanda. And highly likely haters of the US, as they reserve slander against Raffaele an Italian.

I hope Frank or someone investigates it to the source, maybe some law firm could unveil this Hate Group, who have ability to get the lies and dishonesty of the PG to be printed by the media.

A common denominator would be likely found with the sex list and this media lie too. A list of names and media contacts would not be something the CIA couldn't find in a week, but for a journalist-reporter a very large task.

The Hate Group, subsidiary of PG Inc. are desperate, maybe only 14 days or so left. Then they can go arrest someone else, they can beat up Frank, or maybe arrest C&V, or maybe Girgha can be banned and burned at the stake by the Migninin, Maresca, Commodi fans, Monica Napoleoni and Steffanoni can help support their fantasy....and Edgardo Giobbi can have more pictures on his Wall of Shame before the trial starts.

Right, they did not succeed. Amanda's attorney expressly stated it was VIA HER LAWYERS that the remarks came; she did not talk to any press. Yes, desperation tactics. And I hope Frank Sfarzo will get to the bottom of it, although it is pretty clear where such tactics might have developed, and why. Great post.

 

[shuttlt]

PMF is always saying how bad it is that she didn't proclaim his innocence. They are numerous posts to that effect.

Certainly and they fall into two classes.
1. People talking under the assumption of guilt, saying that she is morally worse for having tried to frame an innocent man.
2. People making no assumption about guilt, or taking on the assumption of innocence, who feel that it's clear that Amanda's retraction of her statement is sufficiently ambiguous that it fails to assert his innocence nearly as strongly as it could have done, without her claiming any knowledge of the crime.

 

[Mary_H]

Apologies for going off on one.

Not a problem in the least.

Originally Posted by RoseMontague
Quite simply, they make this out to be horrible that Amanda did not proclaim his innocence even if she could not possibly know this.

Originally Posted by shuttlt
I've still to see anybody actually say that this is what they want. Fiona didn't, Thoughtful didn't, Stilcho didn't. I will PM the machine and make sure and get an answer from him.

Originally Posted by RoseMontague
PMF is always saying how bad it is that she didn't proclaim his innocence. They are numerous posts to that effect.

I have seen it in every public forum on the murder.

 

[Matthew Best]

Certainly and they fall into two classes.
1. People talking under the assumption of guilt, saying that she is morally worse for having tried to frame an innocent man.
2. People making no assumption about guilt, or taking on the assumption of innocence, who feel that it's clear that Amanda's retraction of her statement is sufficiently ambiguous that it fails to assert his innocence nearly as strongly as it could have done, without her claiming any knowledge of the crime.

Class 3: people who use her "accusation of an innocent man" as evidence that she is guilty.

 

[shuttlt]

I have seen it in every public forum on the murder.

Ok, look.... Rather than dancing around this for another hour, why don't I find out what the Machine means be this and we'll call that definitive? I'll PM him now and let you know. If the answer is contrary to my expectations I promise to let you know before sloping of in embarrassment.

 

[shuttlt]

Class 3: people who use her "accusation of an innocent man" as evidence that she is guilty.

I think that's somewhat separate. If you take the view that, guilty or innocent, it shows some kind of character flaw, then it's some kind of weak evidence for guilt I suppose. In any case, the issue was whether or not there was a sufficiently unambiguous retraction, not the accusation itself.

 

[Matthew Best]

If you take the view that, guilty or innocent, it shows some kind of character flaw, then it's some kind of weak evidence for guilt I suppose.

Disagree.

 

[shuttlt]

Disagree.

You disagree with my conclusion, my premise, or my route from the one to the other?

 

[Matthew Best]

The journey from having a character flaw to being guilty of murder is a bit too far for me to join you in your travels.

 

[Dan O.]

In any case, what reason would she have for not unambiguously saying that her statement untrue (within the boring and obvious limits that her claiming to not have been there imply), given that it would have no impact either way?

I can't believe that nobody has yet mentioned the simple fact that the first instruction from her lawyer would be "STOP TALKING TO THE PLOICE". Even without that instruction, Amanda would have gotten the hint given what has happened to her so far specifically because she was talking to the police without the protection and guidance of a lawyer.

But still, perhaps Amanda should have ignored her lawyers advice and told the police (or even better, put in a written note):

However, it was under this pressure and after many hours of confusion that my mind came up with these answers. In my
mind I saw Patrik in flashes of blurred images. I saw him near the basketball court. I saw him at my front door. I saw
myself cowering in the kitchen with my hands over my ears because in my head I could hear Meredith screaming. But
I've said this many times so as to make myself clear: these things seem unreal to me, like a dream, and I am unsure if they are real things that happened or are just dreams my head has made to try to answer the questions in my head and the questions I am being asked.​

 

[Antony]

I believe that Lumumba truly did say the things that are directly attributed to him in the Daily Mail piece. I think this because I believe the Daily Mail would not have published such inflammatory quotes from Lumumba (printed as direct quotes within quotation marks) without solid legal clarification that Lumumba actually said those things. I think it's more than likely that the Mail has Lumumba's words on tape.

Secondly, I think that Lumumba was very likely telling the truth when he spoke about the police brutality and the verbal/physical abuse. I think this because Lumumba himself would appear to have nothing to gain from making these accusations, and because he himself would know that making such accusations would be extremely stupid (and dangerous) if they were not true. So I think that the police really did do and say all those things to Lumumba during and after his arrest.

And lastly, I think that there is a clear rationale as to why Lumumba subsequently tried to disassociate himself from these accusations against the police. I think that either the police or prosecutors contacted him and told him in no uncertain terms that they had the power to make life very difficult indeed for him. Furthermore, I think they very likely told him that he would be unable to ever prove these accusations, and that if he didn't publicly retract them he might be hit with a criminal slander charge which he would almost certainly lose. Lumumba owned a business at that time (although the police/prosecutors managed to sink that by ludicrously keeping his bar closed for months as a "crime scene"), and would have known full well that the police could make life very difficult for him at both a business and personal level.

OT: Could the mighty Wales be about the beat the 'boks in the World Cup?! Dowch 'laen Cymru!

I agree with all that, with these additional points:

- he might have realised, after being beaten, threatened and racially abused by the police, that anything that Amanda had said to them would have been influenced by similar behaviour. Regrettably, he didn't make the connection even at the time of the Daily Mail article, let alone once he had been persuaded that the police mistreatment didn't happen;

- during their little talk, I suspect that the police let him know that they had no objection to him pursuing a civil action against Amanda!

 

[shuttlt]

The journey from having a character flaw to being guilty of murder is a bit too far for me to join you in your travels.

Likewise the journey from being an honors student to innocence.

 

[shuttlt]

I can't believe that nobody has yet mentioned the simple fact that the first instruction from her lawyer would be "STOP TALKING TO THE PLOICE". Even without that instruction, Amanda would have gotten the hint given what has happened to her so far specifically because she was talking to the police without the protection and guidance of a lawyer.

I agree, and it's essentially what Stilcho said. I'm sure her lawyers did attempt to control and restrict what she said. This is explaining why, after the "gift", she didn't say more rather than claiming that it was a logical impossibility for her to do so.

 

[Matthew Best]

Likewise the journey from being an honors student to innocence.

But I'm not postulating that being an honors student is evidence for innocence. Whereas you are making the postulation I objected to. So I don't understand your point here. Unless it's just to make this conversation even harder to follow than it already is.

 

[Diocletus]

And only one produced the Meredith profile.

This massively supports the "contaminated in the laboratory" theory. If there is DNA of Meredith's in the lab, then the chance of it happening to contaminate the only sample from the knife seems like a big coincidence. But the more samples you test, the better the chance that one of them will pick up a low level contamination.

Suppose the contamination was only affecting one sample in ten. And it was such a low level you'd need LCN techniques to see it. And of course if a sample which really had Meredith's DNA on it was affected, it would be impossible to tell.

In this context, pointing out that other samples tested didn't show Meredith contamination is almost irrelevant. You'd need to be looking at samples that didn't have her DNA on them in the first place, and then you'd have to crank the sensitivity right up as was done with the knife, and then you're only going to see it in 10% of the samples.

No wonder Novelli couldn't immediately lay his hand on another example....

Rolfe.

Yes. I think that Novelli didn't find any other contamination during the "6 days" because he didn't look for LCN-Meredith contamination. It's the same thing as saying that no tiny shards of glass were found under the window when nobody went and looked for tiny shards of glass under the window. If you don't look for it the right way, you won't find it. To then use that as evidence to prove that it's not there is dishonest.