Continuation Part 3 - Discussion of the Amanda Knox case

[Poppy1016]

I have always believed that Rudy was a police informant. Otherwise they would not have ignored his other breakins. Everything surrounding his conviction and light sentence is proof to me of the police trying to protect him.

 

[RandyN]

After the Daily Mail article, we can be fairly sure that Patrick was physically and verbally abused on the day of his arrest, and if he had been thinking rationally, he would have realised that Amanda must have been subjected to something of the same treatment. But as you say, he didn't have any knowledge of false confessions, and in addition, he (maybe subconsciously) knew that it was a bad idea to take sides against the police in any argument of facts.

It's highly-significant that in spite of the horrendous treatment described in his DM article, he disowned the account for whatever reason, once he had a chance to "reflect" on his situation.

Please allow me to translate....He disowned the story after a meeting with Prosecutor Mignini. Certainly Mignini reminded Diya what happens to persons accusing the police of brutality...and the cherry on top moment is when after being jailed for two weeks the police kept his business shuddered shut for months (about the amount of time necessary to make him bankrupt) Thank you very much Diya...and you were saying about the police again??? Nothing sir! Nothing!

No charges were ever brought against Diya Lumumba for his story (never retracted by DM btw) in which he accuses the police of beating, handcuffed, unfed, no water for more than 10 hours...no lawyer...you "dirty black" yes they called him that....you can all read it in the Daily Mail...its still there...maybe they will even tell you they paid 70,000 Euros for that story...maybe they wont.

He tried to tell the truth but was put in his place…not by AK though…but by the criminal Mignini. Ahhhh power is good.

 

[RandyN]

I'm well aware that it's possible to add the the time she spent with the Postal Police, the time she spent in the back of the police car and so on and come up with a figure of 50 some hours. To me it feels like an exercise in coming up with the largest number that, with the wind behind it, can possibly be justified. Shouldn't we be trying to come up with the number that best communicates the specific facts of the case to people? Calling that time "interrogation" is a bit naughty, but I won't quibble. It then gets used to talk about why she confessed to the murder in an hour (or shall we say three hours as an upper limit so we don't have to debate it?).

I've been asked to check Google recently. If you Google 'amanda knox "53 hours"' you find this claim over and over on media sites and blogs. Some think that it was all interrogation, but spread over four days - most of them thing that the whole denied food and water thing was spread over the four days. Many clearly believe it was a single 53 hour interrogation - in which she was denied food water and toilet breaks. Sure, I can decrypt that what Bruce means when he says 53 hours of interrogation, is 53 hours in close proximity to the police, but it's a willfully misleading way of putting it.

Now I think about it, the denied food and water claim is stupidly misleading as well. She confessed because she was denied food for a couple of hours three-four hours after she ate dinner?

Yes quite stupidly misleading...kind of like the leader proclaiming case solved because she ate the pizza. Experienced Detective = AK ??? Who is more stupid?

 

[Dougm]

I don't think it matters if it was 53 hours or 3 hours. Amanda was, by all accounts, subjected to a fierce interrogation, starting in the late evening and continuing overnight. She was clearly very tired and scared, and was being interrorated in a language she was not fluent in. If you read the statements that she signed, both the first and second, they clearly sound written by the police, not her. Everyone agrees, including Mignini and the police interogators, that she broke down in tears, sobbing almost uncontrolably. Miginini says this indicated to him that she got a weight off of her shoulders. It sounds to me like she was abused to the point where she would agree to whatever they wanted.

I say this not to blindly defend Amanda -- just read the statements she made, and the "gift" note a few hours after. All of them sound disoriented. No matter how many of the hours between the murder and the interrogation of the 5th/6th she was being questioned, it is clear that for many more hours she was under stress, lack of sleep, etc., and the police took advantage of that.

 

[AmyStrange]

I don't think it matters if it was 53 hours or 3 hours. Amanda was, by all accounts, subjected to a fierce interrogation, starting in the late evening and continuing overnight. She was clearly very tired and scared, and was being interrorated in a language she was not fluent in. If you read the statements that she signed, both the first and second, they clearly sound written by the police, not her. Everyone agrees, including Mignini and the police interogators, that she broke down in tears, sobbing almost uncontrolably. Miginini says this indicated to him that she got a weight off of her shoulders. It sounds to me like she was abused to the point where she would agree to whatever they wanted.

I say this not to blindly defend Amanda -- just read the statements she made, and the "gift" note a few hours after. All of them sound disoriented. No matter how many of the hours between the murder and the interrogation of the 5th/6th she was being questioned, it is clear that for many more hours she was under stress, lack of sleep, etc., and the police took advantage of that.

-

Doug,

it's so true. The confessions do sound weird (or disoriented like you said), even bordering on incoherency. Crying is also a sign of mental exhaustion and/ or post-traumatic delirium which explains the weirdness of the confessions and recant more than that she was crying because she was getting some kind of weight off her chest,

Dave

ETA: how long you are interrogated isn't always the single cause of false confessions entirely, but can also be driven by how you perceive the situation. If you've always believed that people are basicly good and the cops are honest and there to help you and then your confronted with contradictions to this belief like your boyfriend betraying you and throwing you under the bus, all the while the cops are starting to scream at you and calling you a liar and telling you to tell the truth you sick little c*nt and then being smacked in the back of the head harder and harder each time. All the while being told that you aren't going anywhere until you tell us the truth. You might start thinking you'll be there forever and beaten within an inch of your life... what would you do?

 

[stilicho]

So you agree she sounds very confused in the letter. Would you arrest someone for first-degree murder without investigation, based only on a confused, rambling letter written by a young suspect whose story has changed twice in the last 12 hours?

It is not accurate to say that Amanda only tentatively claimed that she could not be relied on to accuse Patrick. First, there was her statement, which clearly shows her withdrawing her knowledge of the crime. Then, there is the recording of her telling her mother than she couldn't accuse Patrick because she wasn't there. Her mother gave the story to the press, and they printed it. Not only that, the police had the story because they were listening in. Her lawyers had the story, too.

There is also the fact that she simply stopped accusing Patrick of the crime once she was in a jail cell.

I'll make a rare exception and contribute since my opinion has been bandied about although it was in response to a question by ShuttIt elsewhere.

First, it's my opinion that Knox knew her boss was innocent the whole time. She wrote that she didn't want to have to testify him. She told the court that she was relieved at Patrick's eventual release. Regardless of her own innocence or guilt these voluntary statements are indications that she knew. Slicing and dicing it isn't helpful.

Second, she shouldn't have written or said either of those things unless advised to do so by counsel. Patrick was not arrested on the basis of the rambling "gift"; he was arrested on the basis of eyewitness testimony and signed statements. Two of them.

Third, she should not apologise to Patrick unless directed to do so by counsel. We still don't know what the Il Messaggero interview is all about. If it is indeed her lawyer's statement to the media then it's likely that she is seeking mitigation and the accusation of murder is a key part of that.

Just to restate so that it's as unambiguous as possible: Knox should not have apologised or revealed in any way that she knew, thought, imagined, or even dreamed that Patrick was innocent after her original signed statements landed him in prison. When asked in mid-2009 about her reaction she should have said that she didn't know or wasn't sure. That is entirely independent of her own innocence or guilt.

That should clarify everything for good and you can all continue along your merry way.

 

[RandyN]

I don't know what exactly he said during the interrogation and how it came to that statement other than that I'm sure he was pressured immensely.

In Candace Dempsey's book his signed statement was written down; it said that Amanda left his flat from 9pm to 1am … that's what he signed …

What night did he say this happened?

 

[RandyN]

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.

This is what happened on halloween night.

 

[RandyN]

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.

Plus the fact that it just so happens that 12 detectives are scheduled to work the overnight shift on the 5th. Hummmmmmmmmmm

 

[AmyStrange]

First, it's my opinion that Knox knew her boss was innocent the whole time. She wrote that she didn't want to have to testify him. She told the court that she was relieved at Patrick's eventual release. Regardless of her own innocence or guilt these voluntary statements are indications that she knew. Slicing and dicing it isn't helpful.

-

So knowing he had an iron-clad alibi for the time of the murder (and thus innocent) had nothing to do with her relief. Hmmm...

 

[codyjuneau]

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

Hi everyone. I just joined up. I am a Pro Innocent lurker. I decided to join the discussion because every once in a while there is a topic I would like to comment on. I don't have a lot of time for posting so please forgive me if my postings are not always current.

Does anybody know if the police have more success extracting false confession when they have multiple suspects? With multiple suspects they can lie to each and play them against one another in order to create confusion and doubt.

In a similar vein, I think having multiple suspects can also increase perceived evidence. Especially circumstantial evidence. For example the police are likely to find twice as many innocent actions/statements/events that can be construed as suspicious if they have two suspects instead of one. Double your suspects, double your suspicions. Mignini is a master at this. I think he had more than 20 suspects for his Monster of Florence theories.

 

[AmyStrange]

Welcome to the forum...

Hi everyone. I just joined up. I am a Pro Innocent lurker. I decided to join the discussion because every once in a while there is a topic I would like to comment on. I don't have a lot of time for posting so please forgive me if my postings are not always current.

Does anybody know if the police have more success extracting false confession when they have multiple suspects? With multiple suspects they can lie to each and play them against one another in order to create confusion and doubt.

In a similar vein, I think having multiple suspects can also increase perceived evidence. Especially circumstantial evidence. For example the police are likely to find twice as many innocent actions/statements/events that can be construed as suspicious if they have two suspects instead of one. Double your suspects, double your suspicions. Mignini is a master at this. I think he had more than 20 suspects for his Monster of Florence theories.

-

Cody,

very interesting observations. Thank you for sharing.

I don't know if multiple suspects means it's easier to extract false confessions, but two that do come to mind off hand are the Norfolk Four and the Central Park jogging case where the term "wilding" was first introduced to the public via the media attention given the (false) confessions. There are probably more, but to me this indicates that you might have a point.

As far as two suspects increasing the odds that suspicious behavior is more likely to occur (than with just one suspect) can't be denied. It just makes sense mathematically,

Dave

 

[Dan O.]

First, it's my opinion that Knox knew her boss was innocent the whole time. She wrote that she didn't want to have to testify him. She told the court that she was relieved at Patrick's eventual release. Regardless of her own innocence or guilt these voluntary statements are indications that she knew. Slicing and dicing it isn't helpful.

Have you got any evidence (beyond your own credulity) that not wanting to testify against someone is an indication of ones guilt? I'll bet you don't and a quick google search for "didn't want to testify against" finds many contrary examples. I think you are just making up lies.

 

[RandyN]

-

Rose Montague,

I'm thinking the same thing as you, but still, how long does it take to match fingerprints? Two weeks? Did they do that with computer software or manually? How did they come up with a sketchy description of him on the 18th, but not a name until the 19th? Has it ever been confirmed that his DNA was not on file?

And "Denver" does bring up an interesting question. Who was Guede's lawyer for all those other "break-ins".

I know it does sound like a crazy theory and the "police informant" theory does have more validity, but still it is an interesting theory none the less,

Dave

In the end I think we will learn for certain that the police didn’t have a clue who made the hand print, shoe prints and who left the strange DNA until Rudys friend went into the police station and said...hey I just talked to my friend Rudy Guede and he has run off to Germany. I think he may be involved in the Kercher murder. That’s what really happened.
I know there have been stories about ID'ed finger prints and immigration cards but these light bulbs were not that smart. Truth is, Rudys pal gave the police the name address and possible current location of someone he thought was involved. Later the police had the friend re-contact Rudy by Skype and thus we have that hours long recorded conversation (you know the one where Rudy never mentions AK or RS)
Without Rudys friend they would still be trying to pin this on Diya….the man paid 70,000 Euros to dish out on AK. His police interrogation section which he later denied can still be read there…Hey, the guy still has to feed his family no matter who he gets back at right? The police or AK …he chose to go after both…I wonder how that’s working out for him now?

And finally…our good friend Diya approached Amanda after her class on Monday morning (that would be the 5th of Nov. ahemmmm) and ask how she was doing and how the case was going and would she be interested in speaking to some reporters. I wonder if the police tail happened to notice this conversation? I mean they noticed that she ate pizza later so …..

Ever wonder if Amanda thought it strange that Diya just happened to run into her after her class on the 5th? Maybe even stranger that he was asking about the murder? Just saying…

 

[AmyStrange]

In the end I think we will learn for certain that the police didn’t have a clue who made the hand print, shoe prints and who left the strange DNA until Rudys friend went into the police station and said...hey I just talked to my friend Rudy Guede and he has run off to Germany. I think he may be involved in the Kercher murder. That’s what really happened.

I know there have been stories about ID'ed finger prints and immigration cards but these light bulbs were not that smart. Truth is, Rudys pal gave the police the name address and possible current location of someone he thought was involved. Later the police had the friend re-contact Rudy by Skype and thus we have that hours long recorded conversation (you know the one where Rudy never mentions AK or RS)
Without Rudys friend they would still be trying to pin this on Diya….the man paid 70,000 Euros to dish out on AK. His police interrogation section which he later denied can still be read there…Hey, the guy still has to feed his family no matter who he gets back at right? The police or AK …he chose to go after both…I wonder how that’s working out for him now?

And finally…our good friend Diya approached Amanda after her class on Monday morning (that would be the 5th of Nov. ahemmmm) and ask how she was doing and how the case was going and would she be interested in speaking to some reporters. I wonder if the police tail happened to notice this conversation? I mean they noticed that she ate pizza later so …..

Ever wonder if Amanda thought it strange that Diya just happened to run into her after her class on the 5th? Maybe even stranger that he was asking about the murder? Just saying…

-

All very good points Randy,

but that doesn't explain why before Rudy's friend even contacted the police they had already announced a world-wide manhunt for a "fourth man", and even though the description didn't exactly match, it still inspired Rudy's friend to contact the police. Source: "Murder in Italy" (p. 219).

What's also interesting is that the police knew there was a "fourth man" two days after the police declared "caso chiuso" (case closed), because they did exactly what I was asking about. They compared the three suspect's prints to the hand print found on Meredith's pillow and found that none of them matched. Source: ibid p. 191.

The next paragraph (on the same page) is even more interesting (the coverage referred to is approx. three days after the perp parade):
"The Italian press placed the 'fourth man' story way down in the coverage where few readers noticed it. Once reporters got a name, though, once they knew who'd laid that bloody hand on Meredith's pillow, then their coverage would explode."

My question is, how did they know the fourth suspect was a "man" from just the hand print? DNA profiling doesn't prove who made the hand print even if DNA was mixed with the bloody hand print. Is there something I'm missing here?

Dave

 

[Caper]

Hi all.

I was reading an article in the Toronto Star.
http://www.thestar.com/news/article/1052267

It mentioned that Amanda changed her story 9 times. Do you know what these were? And maybe provide some insight as to why she did it?

 

[Katody Matrass]

Hi all.

I was reading an article in the Toronto Star.
http://www.thestar.com/news/article/1052267

It mentioned that Amanda changed her story 9 times. Do you know what these were?

Hi. It is not exactly true but it's widely repeated element of the pro guilt propaganda.

Prior to her overnight stay at the police station of November 5/6 she maintained that she spent the night of the murder at her boyfriends flat. During the interrogation she signed two statements in which she say she met her employer Patrik and "recall confusedly that he killed [Meredith]".

Here's a good translation of those two statements (originally in Italian):
1:45 statement
5:45 statement
She retracted it the morning after and returned to her original version.

And maybe provide some insight as to why she did it?

I'll give you a clue:
There is no recording of that overnight interrogation session available, with varying explanations why. The prosecutor once maintained they forgot to tape it, in a recent interview he said they had no budget for making recordings. Accounts of what really happened during that night vary wildly between different police representatives and Knox has been sued for slandering the police after she gave her own version.

 

[Chris_Halkides]

The Toronto Star should hire a fact checker

Hi all.

I was reading an article in the Toronto Star.
http://www.thestar.com/news/article/1052267

It mentioned that Amanda changed her story 9 times. Do you know what these were? And maybe provide some insight as to why she did it?

Caper,

This article has multiple errors. She and Raffaele had two basic stories, namely what they said on 5-6 November and what they said on every other occasion.

 

[Rolfe]

I don't know how accurate it is, but it is still an interesting theory. Read it and judge for yourself:

http://www.groundreport.com/World/AMANDA-KNOX-CONSPIRACY-THEORY/2940838

That's extremely interesting. It's a pity the comments are a train wreck.

I hadn't quite realised that Rudy's adoptive family were quite so anonymous. Do we have a name? Were they active at the time of his trial? Even if they had washed their hands of him, it seems odd that they would have remained in total obscurity - it's the sort of human interest story (how we gave that boy every chance but he turned bad anyway) that newspapers love and would pay for.

I also hadn't realised that they had all that incontrovertible evidence of someone who was quite clearly not Knox, Sollecito or Lumumba, even before the notorious "interview". Is that claim correct?

There seems to be confusion about when they identified this person as Rudy Guede. Was it only when Rudy's friend contacted the police with his suspicions? I have read in several places that the police were able to match the bloody palm-print to a reference print of Rudy's they had from immigration documents, even before the friend contacted them. It would be interesting to know where this comes in on the timeline.

That article seems to be implying that the entire "railroad job from hell" wasn't just random, but was designed to cover-up and minimise Rudy's part in the crime. Some have suggested that this was done because he was a police informer. This article seems to be suggesting that the real reason was that Rudy's adoptive family is extremely rich and influential.

Now that is certainly a conspiracy theory. Does it stand up, though? What is known about this rather mysterious family?

Rolfe.

 

[bri1]

Rolfe, unfortunately, 'Denver' didn't really do his homework for this piece. It only takes a google search to find out who Rudy's 'adoptive' family were.
http://ironicsurrealism.com/2007/11/20/fourth-suspect-arrested-in-meredith-kercher-murder-case/
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/world/europe/article5034243.ece
http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,312273,00.html

According to the Fox News link, Paolo Caporali was an 'industrialist' who owns a vending machine company.
IIP has his name on their website in the 'people related to the case' section.

I have a problem with blog posts like this, inaccuracy after inaccuracy just enrages the guilters (and rightfully so), and probably does more harm than good.

Plus, there's another issue about Hanlon's Razor- Never attribute to malice that which is adequately explained by stupidity. The cops (and prosecution) were stupid and incompetent. They didn't arrest Rudy previously because they were stupid, in all likelihood.
They didn't frame Amanda and Raffaelle as such, but didn't understand coercion in interrogation, they didn't understand false confessions, they didn't understand confirmation bias or suspect-centred investigation, they didn't understand forensics, they thought they understood profiling/ behavioural investigatory techniques but they didn't, and then once all of these areas of ignorance added up to a very strong belief in their guilt, this then led them (probably) to cut corners, use underhanded tactics, leak inflammatory information to the press before practicing due diligence in ensuring that this info was correct, and spin the evidence in ways very damaging to AK and RS in the court of public opinion and the actual court room.