Continuation Part 3 - Discussion of the Amanda Knox case

[Dan O.]

Dan O.,

She was denied even seeing a lawyer until just prior to coming in front of Judge Matteini on 8 November. Therefore, even her statement above is more than she should have said, IMO. Once one is arrested, one should be quiet until one speaks with a lawyer and then one should say only what he or she advises. This advice has nothing to do with one's guilt or innocence. By doing otherwise, Amanda could have done further harm to herself without doing Patrick one iota of good. Patrick should be a heckuva lot angrier at the police, for ruining his business, among other things, than anyone else.

I disagree. One should avoid talking to the police period. All it takes is for one idiot cop to think you are being deceitful and suddenly you are the suspect and everything you say will be twisted against you.

 

[Dougm]

I used to read a little at IIP, I found Machiavelli's viewpoint interesting, the rest was just par for the course innocenters agreeing with each other and going over the same topics discussed here. But Machiavelli was consistently trashed personally, called names and slimed by numerous posters there even though he was always very polite himself. I got sick of the place, just as I did of PMF. To me the only interesting forum is where both points of view can be discussed without all the childish aggression and name calling. This place isn't perfect but so far it's the best of all three.

I agree with some of this, mostly that, when someone like Machiavelli posts, some of the posters on IIP have attacked back personally, instead of arguing the merits. But on PMF, any pro-innocent version of Machiavelli would be banned after 2 posts. I went back and forth with Machiavelli for awhile on IIP, but about the arguments, not the person. On the list of most frequent posters on IIP, Machiavelli is in the top 5 -- would any pro-innocense poster ever do that on PMF? Neither board can totally control what each posters says in their posts, but my point was that IIP is open to hearing alternative viewpoints, where PMF is not. I think that says something about each place's confidence in their POV. I was also responding to a post that said that PMF could not possibly allow pro-Knox posters to post there, because it would turn into a brawl. To me, that is reminicent of the PMFers who claim this place is all pro-innocent people because the JREF posters are rude and obnoxious and violate the membership agreement with impunity, which is hardly the case.

 

[snook1]

Nadeau twitted:

Speculation/gossip in PG: judge helmann hoping to be president of local perugia judiciary. Can he risk overturning his peers?

other gossip from streets of Perugia on #amandaknox: this judge actually remembers circumstantial evidence in case, talks about it to pals.

Any thoughts?

Sorry if posted earlier.

 

[Dougm]

Nadeau twitted:



Any thoughts?

Sorry if posted earlier.

My impression is that Nadeau is more interested in the gossip going on there than the actual facts of the case.

 

[AmyStrange]

Oh, was he talking about another night? I don't know that, he was really confused probably …

It was a weird statement for sure because it was contradicted by Johanna Pavovich who saw them at the time he claimed to have been in town with Amanda in that signed statement.

-

Rhea,

yes it was a weird statement, but I certainly wouldn't put it past the cops to show her a statement Raffaele signed during another interrogation about another day and used it to break Amanda,

Dave

 

[Rhea]

-

In the book, she writes on the next page (p. 145 - paraphrasing), that's about the time when the screaming started coming from the room in which she was being interrogated.

It certainly does sound like she went a little crazy about that time, in my opinion,

Dave

Yes, the moment they had that statement of Raffaele and subsequently could tell Amanda that he'd stopped "covering for her" they probably began to pressure her much harsher than before …

I still don't understand how they can claim they were interrogating her as a witness not a suspect, considering these methods …
it simply doesn't add up, as most of the prosecution's narrative …

 

[Diocletus]

Nadeau twitted:



Any thoughts?

Sorry if posted earlier.

My thought is that if any of the following are competing candidates, you can release Knox and Sollecito yesterday: Massei, Massei's assistant, Mignini (doutful), Matteini, Comodi or Giancarlo Cariolasanga (or whatever his name is).

Also, I think that Barbie is a dope.

 

[AmyStrange]

Nadeau twitted:

Speculation/gossip in PG: judge helmann hoping to be president of local perugia judiciary. Can he risk overturning his peers?

other gossip from streets of Perugia on #amandaknox: this judge actually remembers circumstantial evidence in case, talks about it to pals.

Any thoughts?

Sorry if posted earlier.

-

I hate gossip. It very rarely is positive or reliable, ever played the "telephone" game:
http://wondertime.go.com/create-and-play/article/telephone-game.html

Dave

 

[Dougm]

Yes, the moment they had that statement of Raffaele and subsequently could tell Amanda that he'd stopped "covering for her" they probably began to pressure her much harsher than before …

I still don't understand how they can claim they were interrogating her as a witness not a suspect, considering these methods …
it simply doesn't add up, as most of the prosecution's narrative …

The impression of this seems to hinge on each person's POV on the police, and also on Amanda.

To me, it is so obvious that:

* The police considered Amanda a suspect, not just that night, but before that
* The interrogations of Amanda and Raffaele were not things that happened at the spur of the moment, but were carefully planned
* They started with Raffaele, with the goal of getting him to say anything that contradicted Amanda's version, so they could start on her using that. When he got confused and gave the version of what they did on a different night (was he confused, stoned, or ???), that was all that they needed
* It was not a coincidence that they had tag teams of police there late in the evening, as well as an interpreter
* It was not a coincidence nor a mistake that they did not record the interrogation -- they did not want an objective record of it to exist

Whether someone believes in Amanda and Raffaele's innocence, or thinks they are guilty, I don't understand how people can argue that this interrogation was not planned. To believe that they had no interest in interrogating Amanda at all until Raff changed his story, and that she was not considered a suspect until then, etc. is not, in my mind, looking objectively at the facts. All police everywhere are human beings, and they develop a suspicion about certain people from the minute the crime is discovered. Then they try to prove that case against those people, and if they can talk to them and get them to confess, so much the better. But to believe they just went forth and let the facts take them where they took them, and that the interrogation was not a pre-planned event, is just denial to me.

 

[AmyStrange]

No recording of interogation...

Yes, the moment they had that statement of Raffaele and subsequently could tell Amanda that he'd stopped "covering for her" they probably began to pressure her much harsher than before …

I still don't understand how they can claim they were interrogating her as a witness not a suspect, considering these methods …
it simply doesn't add up, as most of the prosecution's narrative …

Rhea,

I can. They probably lied about their intentions and since we have no recording... there's no way to absolutely disprove it.

It's a known fact that cops lie in order to get confessions etc. It's why in the US there was actually a court case about the police lying to get a confession and the defense tried to get that confession thrown out, because it was obtained as a result of a police lie, but a higher court actually ruled that a police lie doesn't negate a confession or statement made by a witness/ or suspect even though it was what made them confess. Can't remember the cite off hand, but maybe someone else here can recall it,

Dave

 

[Rhea]

The impression of this seems to hinge on each person's POV on the police, and also on Amanda.

To me, it is so obvious that:

* The police considered Amanda a suspect, not just that night, but before that
* The interrogations of Amanda and Raffaele were not things that happened at the spur of the moment, but were carefully planned
* They started with Raffaele, with the goal of getting him to say anything that contradicted Amanda's version, so they could start on her using that. When he got confused and gave the version of what they did on a different night (was he confused, stoned, or ???), that was all that they needed
* It was not a coincidence that they had tag teams of police there late in the evening, as well as an interpreter
* It was not a coincidence nor a mistake that they did not record the interrogation -- they did not want an objective record of it to exist

Whether someone believes in Amanda and Raffaele's innocence, or thinks they are guilty, I don't understand how people can argue that this interrogation was not planned. To believe that they had no interest in interrogating Amanda at all until Raff changed his story, and that she was not considered a suspect until then, etc. is not, in my mind, looking objectively at the facts. All police everywhere are human beings, and they develop a suspicion about certain people from the minute the crime is discovered. Then they try to prove that case against those people, and if they can talk to them and get them to confess, so much the better. But to believe they just went forth and let the facts take them where they took them, and that the interrogation was not a pre-planned event, is just denial to me.

I completely agree, that is exactly what I mean …

I don't understand how anybody can claim she was a witness when this interrogation took place and then simply out of nowhere accused Lumumba …

 

[Diocletus]

The impression of this seems to hinge on each person's POV on the police, and also on Amanda.

To me, it is so obvious that:

* The police considered Amanda a suspect, not just that night, but before that
* The interrogations of Amanda and Raffaele were not things that happened at the spur of the moment, but were carefully planned
* They started with Raffaele, with the goal of getting him to say anything that contradicted Amanda's version, so they could start on her using that. When he got confused and gave the version of what they did on a different night (was he confused, stoned, or ???), that was all that they needed
* It was not a coincidence that they had tag teams of police there late in the evening, as well as an interpreter
* It was not a coincidence nor a mistake that they did not record the interrogation -- they did not want an objective record of it to exist

Whether someone believes in Amanda and Raffaele's innocence, or thinks they are guilty, I don't understand how people can argue that this interrogation was not planned. To believe that they had no interest in interrogating Amanda at all until Raff changed his story, and that she was not considered a suspect until then, etc. is not, in my mind, looking objectively at the facts. All police everywhere are human beings, and they develop a suspicion about certain people from the minute the crime is discovered. Then they try to prove that case against those people, and if they can talk to them and get them to confess, so much the better. But to believe they just went forth and let the facts take them where they took them, and that the interrogation was not a pre-planned event, is just denial to me.

My feeling is that they did record. But if they did, they would have destroyed the tapes as soon as they figured out that in the gift statement she says that they hit her. She obviously didn't make that charge up on the spot to hand it to the police. They really did hit her.

 

[Rhea]

Rhea,

I can. They probably lied about their intentions and since we have no recording... there's no way to absolutely disprove it.

It's a known fact that cops lie in order to get confessions etc. It's why in the US there was actually a court case about the police lying to get a confession and the defense tried to get that confession thrown out, because it was obtained as a result of a police lie, but a higher court actually ruled that a police lie doesn't negate a confession or statement made by a witness/ or suspect even though it was what made them confess. Can't remember the cite off hand, but maybe someone else here can recall it,

Dave

The objective facts tell us she was considered a suspect at that point; twelve police officers, interrogated during the night, screamed at, told there was evidence of her at the crime scene, she would go to prison for thirty years if she wouldn't cooperate, that is not how police interrogates witnesses …

And there are more points, so we can objectively say that she was definitely seen as a suspect at that point … these methods aren't explainable otherwise …

If the police lies to somebody, saying they have evidence they were at the crimescene when the crime happened, they obviously believe this person to be guilty … they wouldn't use these methods on witnesses.

 

[Rolfe]

You are right it's impossible, but people generally form their opinions going by feelings and impressions and tribal identity comes into it. And there are bad people who really know that an argument is unassailable but still oppose it for personal gain-for example to make money writing a book. They are just like Kirk Douglas in that movie Ace in the Hole.
To my my mind, the likes of John Follain and Barbie-what's her name are worse than that character Chuck Tatum. Tatum thought Leo would be alright and that the story would have a happy ending. The Coulters and Follains are much worse than Chuck. They really don't care if they make their dough thanks to two innocent kids going to jail for life. They can't be guilty because good science says that they can't be. But you know that some crummy prosecution lawyer will still go for it even if he knows that.

Belatedly, welcome to the forum Arthur.

You can't reason people out of a position they didn't reason themselves into the first place.

A couple of weeks ago I was at a lecture about the Lockerbie trial. That one is a complete slam-dunk of a miscarriage of justice when you simply read the judges' own report. But the chairman, an advocate, immediately attacked the speaker as soon as he sat down. He essentially maintained that judges and lawyers know best, and plebs like intellectuals or scientists should know their place and not argue. He stonewalled multiple attacks from audience members, simply by smirking, shaking his head, or saying "I don't agree". Oh yes and once he simply lied.

That was a surreal experience, and left me a little bit wiser about the sort of mindsets there are out there.

Rolfe.

 

[AmyStrange]

The impression of this seems to hinge on each person's POV on the police, and also on Amanda.

To me, it is so obvious that:

* The police considered Amanda a suspect, not just that night, but before that
* The interrogations of Amanda and Raffaele were not things that happened at the spur of the moment, but were carefully planned
* They started with Raffaele, with the goal of getting him to say anything that contradicted Amanda's version, so they could start on her using that. When he got confused and gave the version of what they did on a different night (was he confused, stoned, or ???), that was all that they needed
* It was not a coincidence that they had tag teams of police there late in the evening, as well as an interpreter
* It was not a coincidence nor a mistake that they did not record the interrogation -- they did not want an objective record of it to exist

Whether someone believes in Amanda and Raffaele's innocence, or thinks they are guilty, I don't understand how people can argue that this interrogation was not planned. To believe that they had no interest in interrogating Amanda at all until Raff changed his story, and that she was not considered a suspect until then, etc. is not, in my mind, looking objectively at the facts. All police everywhere are human beings, and they develop a suspicion about certain people from the minute the crime is discovered. Then they try to prove that case against those people, and if they can talk to them and get them to confess, so much the better. But to believe they just went forth and let the facts take them where they took them, and that the interrogation was not a pre-planned event, is just denial to me.

-

Doug,

an interesting aside is when the Rolling Stone article came out a couple (two three or more) months ago, the pro-guilters argued that since one of the statements made in the article (that the police asked both Amanda and Raffaele to come down for questioning on the night of Nov 5th) was false and therefore discredited the whole arguement. I think they argued that the police only asked Raffaele to come in and Amanda was only there because she was tagging along.

To me it doesn't matter if what they said was true or not, because to me even if they didn't originally ask Amanda in also, their plan (in my opinion) was to first use Raffaele to break Amanda's alibi and then they were going to go get her and bring her in and break her using Raffaele's statement to do it.

It's possible because that's exactly what they did with Patrick, and also interesting that Amanda's Mom was coming in the next day and it was a last ditch effort to arrest her before that happened,

Dave

 

[LondonJohn]

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

It's amazing that so many pro-guilt commentators can't see the false corollary that they have set up, together with a classic case of circular reasoning: 1) only a guilty person would falsely accuse an innocent person and refuse to retract the accusation; 2) ergo, Knox is guilty; 3) ergo, she knew for a fact that Lumumba wasn't involved; 4) ergo, she should have told the police that Lumumba was innocent; 5) ergo, Knox is "double-guilty" etc etc

I see that Ganong has employed all her considerable intellect and reasoning skills to make the following observations about the Knox interrogation and "confession/accusation":

Let's imagine the hypothetical question before Amanda's arrest:

Police bully: Amanda, was Patrick Lumumba involved in Meredith's murder? Tell the truth or you will go to jail, like, forever.

And the hypothetical response that Amanda should have given:
Amanda: How the heck would I know? I wasn't there. I don't know who murdered Meredith Kercher. [Here she might have added: "As far as I know, Patrick was running his bar that night. I was supposed to work but he texted me to say he didn't need me because things were slow."]

But instead, Amanda Knox, upon hearing this hypothetical question, says to herself: (Expletive deleted)! What now? Raffie has told them I went out! Well, as Raffie said, Black man found, black man guilty. Eureka! Patrick is black! And it seems the police think he was involved...Quick! What would Jesus do? Help the police, that's what!

And she decides instead to tell a tale about Patrick wanting Meredith, etc. etc. etc. After having done so, what does she do? Pretend this unfortunate turn of events never happened. Stick her fingers in her ears and go "lalalalalala". State privately that she felt kinda bad about it.

And here's an alternative version from me, which I believe is a whole lot closer to the truth of what happened that night:

Let's imagine the hypothetical question before Amanda's arrest:

Police bully: Amanda, we know you and Patrick were there at the time of the murder. We know that Patrick murdered Meredith. We have found physical evidence proving that Patrick murdered Meredith, and we have also found physical evidence proving you were there too. So you must be confused about where you thought you were that evening. Sometimes people who have been part of a traumatic event involuntarily blank out the event from their memory. This must be what happened to you, Amanda. Now you must try to remember. You must try really, really hard. And remember, we have proof that you and Lumumba were there, so be very careful about what you remember (cue "Police Interpreter" who actually becomes part of the interrogation team to coach Knox about the existence of traumatic memory loss). So, let's be perfectly clear here Amanda. You need to recover your lost memory, and tell us what we already know. By confirming that you took Patrick to the cottage and were present when he raped and killed poor Meredith, you will give us additional evidence against this brutal killer. So, do you remember the truth now Amanda?

Knox: But I remember being at Raffaele's apartment that night.

Police: But Raffaele has just told us that he now thinks you might have left his apartment for an extended period that night. Face it, Amanda, you were there and you took Patrick there. You might sincerely believe that you were at Raffaele's all night, but we have proof otherwise and Raffaele himself now supports our position.

Knox: Uhhh, this makes no sense, I don't know what to think.

Police: Oh and by the way Amanda, two more things: firstly, if you continue to insist that you were nowhere near the cottage, this will count against you in subsequent court proceedings. If, however, you now remember the truth, this will be very much to your advantage. Basically, Amanda, if you continue to insist you weren't there at all, we'll have to assume that you have something big to hide, which is that you were actually directly involved in the murder. And any court would take that position too: you'll go to jail for 30 years Amanda. And secondly, by telling us the truth - that you were there but that Lumumba killed Meredith - you will be protecting yourself as well. After all, Lumumba knows that you know he murdered Meredith: he might therefore try to get to you to silence you. Why do you think he "bumped into you" outside the university the other day? We suggest that your safety is in grave danger unless you cooperate fully with us and help us bring Patrick in immediately.

Knox: Uhhhhhhhhh, I don't know what to do or what to think.

Police: Right, enough messing around now Amanda. Start remembering what happened that night, or you'll probably go to prison for a very long time - that is if Patrick doesn't get to you first. Remember, we have solid evidence placing you in the cottage at the time of the murder. So we must be right, and you must had suppressed your memory. Now is the time to tell us everything: that you met up with Patrick and went to the cottage with him, whereupon he attacked, raped and killed poor Meredith while you were in another room. Shall I draft a statement to this effect, Amanda?

Knox: Uhhhh yes, you must be right. I must have been there. Yes, I'll sign whatever you want.

 

[AmyStrange]

The objective facts tell us she was considered a suspect at that point; twelve police officers, interrogated during the night, screamed at, told there was evidence of her at the crime scene, she would go to prison for thirty years if she wouldn't cooperate, that is not how police interrogates witnesses …

And there are more points, so we can objectively say that she was definitely seen as a suspect at that point … these methods aren't explainable otherwise …

If the police lies to somebody, saying they have evidence they were at the crimescene when the crime happened, they obviously believe this person to be guilty … they wouldn't use these methods on witnesses.

I totally agree with you Rhea,

but without the tape there is no way to prove it absolutely,

Dave

 

[Dougm]

It's amazing that so many pro-guilt commentators can't see the false corollary that they have set up, together with a classic case of circular reasoning: 1) only a guilty person would falsely accuse an innocent person and refuse to retract the accusation; 2) ergo, Knox is guilty; 3) ergo, she knew for a fact that Lumumba wasn't involved; 4) ergo, she should have told the police that Lumumba was innocent; 5) ergo, Knox is "double-guilty" etc etc

I see that Ganong has employed all her considerable intellect and reasoning skills to make the following observations about the Knox interrogation and "confession/accusation":




And here's an alternative version from me, which I believe is a whole lot closer to the truth of what happened that night:

LJ -- Your version makes a hell of a lot more sense.

I would just change the tone a bit, based on what I know about how people in general operate in this situation, and what Amanda has reported. Instead of, "Right, enough messing around now Amanda. Start remembering what happened that night, or you'll probably go to prison for a very long time - that is if Patrick doesn't get to you first", I think it was more of, "Stop with the lying! You know you were there, and by lying you are just being stupid and protecting a killer!! Tell the truth, or you will go to jail for 30 years, and we'll throw away the key!! That is, of course, if Patrick doesn't find you first and do the same thing he did to Meredith!! STOP LYING!! YOU STUPID GIRL!! We know you know what happened!!

 

[Dougm]

-

Doug,

an interesting aside is when the Rolling Stone article came out a couple (two three or more) months ago, the pro-guilters argued that since one of the statements made in the article (that the police asked both Amanda and Raffaele to come down for questioning on the night of Nov 5th) was false and therefore discredited the whole arguement. I think they argued that the police only asked Raffaele to come in and Amanda was only there because she was tagging along.

To me it doesn't matter if what they said was true or not, because to me even if they didn't originally ask Amanda in also, their plan (in my opinion) was to first use Raffaele to break Amanda's alibi and then they were going to go get her and bring her in and break her using Raffaele's statement to do it.

It's possible because that's exactly what they did with Patrick, and also interesting that Amanda's Mom was coming in the next day and it was a last ditch effort to arrest her before that happened,

Dave

Dave --

I agree, but it doesn't really matter. To believe that the police only called Raff in that night, and that means that Amanda was not suspected at that point is illogical. There are multiple versions of the story:

* The police only called Raff, and Amanda went along (this is the police version, PG version, and Amanda's version)
* The police only called Raff, but knew Amanda would come along, because they have been inseparable since the murder (logical version)
* The police only called Raff, and could have called Amanda as soon as he broke (also logical, although I tend to prefer bullet 2)
* The police called both (per Giobbi)

I don't find this point very relevent, and as I posted before, I think it is clear she was a suspect at this point, regardless of which of the above bullets one chooses to believe. It is very common for police to manipulate the designation of "suspect" vs "witness", and if I were the police, and thought I was dealing with catching a killer, I would do that as well. I would hope I would not have to lie to people to get them to crack, however, but I probably would have to do that too.

 

[LondonJohn]

I've seen it before but I still laughed out loud.

(I met David Mitchell once, in the Phoenix Artists Club. Have you ever been there, LJ? It's rather good. I also once saw someone who looked similar to Ricky Gervais, and pointed him out to my companions, saying "Look, that bloke looks just like Ricky Gervais!". They pointed out that it was Ricky Gervais and that I was an idiot.)

I have been there, quite a few years ago! It's the den of iniquity underneath the Phoenix Theatre isn't it? I'm currently intrigued about getting into the Experimental Cocktail Club in Chinatown: it's a louche speakeasy, which is accessible via a totally anonymous black door (No sign, no door number!) in between two Chinese restaurants on Gerrard Street