Continuation Part 3 - Discussion of the Amanda Knox case

[Katody Matrass]

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?

AFAIK they had no forensic results yet at the time. The article says they identified Guede immediately by the DNA. It doesn't look correct. They had no DNA of Guede in the records, only his prints. I think they realized they need a 4th man only after they took prints from the three arrested. That's when they realized their intuition and behaviour observation is not enough and they started processing the forensics seriously.

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.

This article dated November 12 mentions the print:

A fingerprint found on Ms Kercher's bloodstained pillow is not that of any of the three known suspects, police say.

I don't know how long does it take to look up someone's prints in the database, but it seems sensible they got the result almost immediately. I think by the time they admitted there's a "fourth suspect" they already knew it's Guede.


ETA: 100% agree, bri1!

 

[Rolfe]

Thanks for that, guys. I have read some of it before, but I just didn't know enough about the case to be able to tell whether the CT had any validity. It's a pity the comments on the page don't debunk it properly.

So, they had the palm print and they had the DNA, but they didn't realise until after the three were in custody that this evidence didn't point to any of the three suspects. They do seem to have gone pretty light on Rudy, nevertheless.

Rolfe.

 

[Kaosium]

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?

As has been noted it's meaningless propaganda predicated on the two statements she signed and the note, which basically all say the same thing, she's vague and confused because of the interrogation as to what happened that night. She wasn't 'vague and confused' before they started messing with her mind, and it wore off. About thirty or so pages back in a response to Pilot I tried to figure out just how that agitprop was constructed with no response, which may mean I had it right. That's 'six' for Amanda, and 'three' for Raffaele, and for the life of me at the moment I can't recall how they got past four for Amanda, let me see if I can work it out again:

First 'change:' From her real alibi to the 'vaguely remembers' 1:45 AM statement.

Second 'change:' the 'confused' 5:45 statement which just adds 'detail' to the first one. Absolute mendacity to pretend this is an 'alibi change' from the first statement.

Third 'change:' the 'gift' note in which she explains why she's so vague and confused in the first two statements, which were in a language she didn't read very well at the time.

Fourth change: back to what really happened.

Crap, how did I do this before? It must be too early for me to slip into Machine mode. The e-mail? It's the same alibi of course, but a piece this dishonest might count it. Raffaele's is easier, that they were home together, then when they confused him about the days and he says they split up downtown and he went home, then back to being with Amanda at home. Ah, that must be the trick, it's not 'alibi changes' but 'alibis'--so the first one counts for Amanda making it five, and somehow they must have pretended the e-mail which didn't 'change' anything must be another story change.

Oh, that's it! It's every time she uttered anything, it counted as a 'story change,' and since they weren't all exactly the same, as in some included information not in others--as would naturally occur--it's pretended it's a 'story change.'

I have heard that Canada has libel laws not unlike Britain's. Perhaps someone ought to make an object lesson of those who seem to take 'facts' from what they could receive from kooky websites in their e-mail inboxes. Or at least get a retraction.

Wait a minute, could Maresca be sending crap like this out? That might be even more likely, he has about the same regard for the truth as The Machine, and they might actually print as fact something that came from the 'victim's lawyer' as they'd figure it would have to be legitimate.

It would be nice to tack a jackal pelt to the wall...

 

[Kaosium]

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.

I should have read the article first, I figured it was a hit piece with it including the 'nine stories' nonsense. It's actually pretty fair, except the details were wrong, a number of them, but not necessarily slanted against her. I wonder where she got them from?

Geez, how many pictures did they take of her with the high-beams on? That was one thing they couldn't really get during the 'Foxy Knoxy' smear, they could get the funny looks and smiles, but nothing overtly sexual and she's decidedly the 'college sweatshirt' type.

 

[Chris_Halkides]

Hendry thinks Rudy could have been caught prior to 5 November

Thanks for that, guys. I have read some of it before, but I just didn't know enough about the case to be able to tell whether the CT had any validity. It's a pity the comments on the page don't debunk it properly.

So, they had the palm print and they had the DNA, but they didn't realise until after the three were in custody that this evidence didn't point to any of the three suspects. They do seem to have gone pretty light on Rudy, nevertheless.

Rolfe.

Rolfe,

Almost all of page 218 of Murder in Italy is about Rudy's informally adopted family. The senior Caporali called Rudy a tremendous liar. Ron Hendry thinks that the police might have been able to identify Rudy quite quickly, within 24 hours.

 

[Supernaut]

For the obfuscaters here; presence of Raff's DNA ...

... in Amanda's/Meredith's flat.

Raff visited the cottage on several occasions. He even cooked a meal there once.

Amanda had spent a great deal of time in the previous 10 or more days in Raff's inimate company, undoubtedly acquiring and transferring considerable quantities of his DNA.

Therefore it would be EXPECTED to find low template DNA of Raff's in numerous places in the flat.

RAFF'S DNA IN LOW TEMPLATE QUANTITIES ANYWHERE IN THE COTTAGE IS EVIDENCE OF NOTHING BUT THE ABOVE.

Rudy Guede, on the other hand, had never visited or been invited to the flat.

He was not a friend of any of the women who lived there.

Nevertheless His DNA was recovered not in LCN quantities but from identifiable cells - rectal mucous (from the toilet) and epithelial (skin) cells on and inside Meredith's body, amongst other places.

THIS IS DIRECT EVIDENCE THAT HE WAS IN THE FLAT AT THE TIME OF MEREDITH'S DEATH, AND CIRCUMSTANTIAL EVIDENCE THAT HE TOOK PART IN, OR PERPETRATED HER MURDER.

 

[bri1]

AFAIK they had no forensic results yet at the time. The article says they identified Guede immediately by the DNA. It doesn't look correct. They had no DNA of Guede in the records, only his prints. I think they realized they need a 4th man only after they took prints from the three arrested. That's when they realized their intuition and behaviour observation is not enough and they started processing the forensics seriously.



This article dated November 12 mentions the print:

A fingerprint found on Ms Kercher's bloodstained pillow is not that of any of the three known suspects, police say.

I don't know how long does it take to look up someone's prints in the database, but it seems sensible they got the result almost immediately. I think by the time they admitted there's a "fourth suspect" they already knew it's Guede.


ETA: 100% agree, bri1!

Katody,
Do you think that the posters /lurkers here who routinely 'report' on the JREF conversations to PMF ever bring up criticisms such as the one I made?
All too often they view pro-innocence posters as supportive of the slightly hyperbolic, slightly inaccurate statements or posts or articles made by supporters (like Steve Moore) because we tend to forgive these traits in people who have come to the right conclusions about the case.
Now don't get me wrong, I think Steve brings a lot of experience to bear on the case, and I think that these supporters have their hearts in the right place, but I do think it's our duty to point out inaccuracies even on the part of supporters.
Of course, it's wildly hyprocritical of pro-guilt commentators, as the lies and wilful misrepresentations on their part (from the prosecution and the police, right on down to internet posters) are ubiquitous and mendacious....

 

[Kaosium]

Thanks for that, guys. I have read some of it before, but I just didn't know enough about the case to be able to tell whether the CT had any validity. It's a pity the comments on the page don't debunk it properly.

So, they had the palm print and they had the DNA, but they didn't realise until after the three were in custody that this evidence didn't point to any of the three suspects. They do seem to have gone pretty light on Rudy, nevertheless.

Rolfe.

I thought I posted on that one, Denver must have written a couple more then, as I think I pointed out at least twice the reality of the situation. He asked me for a cite last time and I provided it so perhaps he has it down now. He seems like a nice enough guy, he just doesn't think something smells right about Rudy's role in all this, especially before the murder.

Dr. Mark Waterbury, who's more familiar with the facts and situation than Denver, outlined in his book and at his site a few of the oddities about Rudy Guede's situation. Without having put as much time in it as he did, one fact about him suggests another alternative. He was a promising basketball player who'd at one point been taken in by one of the richest men in the area, mainly so he could play on the team. I think it possible that police overlooked his petty thefts and even potentially shocking behavior (being in the school having stolen a knife) under the assumption if the rich man trusted him in his home he couldn't be all bad, and why upset his patron? Rudy was also known to be an accomplished liar...

 

[RoseMontague]

As has been noted it's meaningless propaganda predicated on the two statements she signed and the note, which basically all say the same thing, she's vague and confused because of the interrogation as to what happened that night. She wasn't 'vague and confused' before they started messing with her mind, and it wore off. About thirty or so pages back in a response to Pilot I tried to figure out just how that agitprop was constructed with no response, which may mean I had it right. That's 'six' for Amanda, and 'three' for Raffaele, and for the life of me at the moment I can't recall how they got past four for Amanda, let me see if I can work it out again:

First 'change:' From her real alibi to the 'vaguely remembers' 1:45 AM statement.

Second 'change:' the 'confused' 5:45 statement which just adds 'detail' to the first one. Absolute mendacity to pretend this is an 'alibi change' from the first statement.

Third 'change:' the 'gift' note in which she explains why she's so vague and confused in the first two statements, which were in a language she didn't read very well at the time.

Fourth change: back to what really happened.

Crap, how did I do this before? It must be too early for me to slip into Machine mode. The e-mail? It's the same alibi of course, but a piece this dishonest might count it. Raffaele's is easier, that they were home together, then when they confused him about the days and he says they split up downtown and he went home, then back to being with Amanda at home. Ah, that must be the trick, it's not 'alibi changes' but 'alibis'--so the first one counts for Amanda making it five, and somehow they must have pretended the e-mail which didn't 'change' anything must be another story change.

Oh, that's it! It's every time she uttered anything, it counted as a 'story change,' and since they weren't all exactly the same, as in some included information not in others--as would naturally occur--it's pretended it's a 'story change.'

I have heard that Canada has libel laws not unlike Britain's. Perhaps someone ought to make an object lesson of those who seem to take 'facts' from what they could receive from kooky websites in their e-mail inboxes. Or at least get a retraction.

Wait a minute, could Maresca be sending crap like this out? That might be even more likely, he has about the same regard for the truth as The Machine, and they might actually print as fact something that came from the 'victim's lawyer' as they'd figure it would have to be legitimate.

It would be nice to tack a jackal pelt to the wall...

LOL.

Here's a quote from On ********:

For the essence of ******** is not that it is false but that is phony.

 

[Kaosium]

Katody,
Do you think that the posters /lurkers here who routinely 'report' on the JREF conversations to PMF ever bring up criticisms such as the one I made?
All too often they view pro-innocence posters as supportive of the slightly hyperbolic, slightly inaccurate statements or posts or articles made by supporters (like Steve Moore) because we tend to forgive these traits in people who have come to the right conclusions about the case.
Now don't get me wrong, I think Steve brings a lot of experience to bear on the case, and I think that these supporters have their hearts in the right place, but I do think it's our duty to point out inaccuracies even on the part of supporters.
Of course, it's wildly hyprocritical of pro-guilt commentators, as the lies and wilful misrepresentations on their part (from the prosecution and the police, right on down to internet posters) are ubiquitous and mendacious....

I agree, and in a case like Denver's piece I've offered some...constructive advice, a couple times I thought. I wonder if my comment was one of the five not showing? Did it get deleted? Huh, I certainly wasn't vicious about it or anything. Maybe it was another one he wrote for Ground Report.

I'm not much of a nitpicker though, which isn't what you did, but just saying I can't keep some things exactly straight, and I'm not going to look every silly little detail like what time that Naruto was started, that one for some reason got jumbled in my mind. It was either 9:27 or 9:28, as far as I'm concerned it's the same thing. I just love the tilde ~ sometimes! There was a time though, that little rabbits and felines kept us on our toes, dedicated to making sure everyone knew which toilet was decorated with Rudy's dump, 'discrediting' posters in the process! If you don't believe me go back about ten pages where I posted to Shuttlt about some of the...historiography ( ) of the threads, and you'll see the exact position of that offal log was very important at one point in the thread!

 

[Grinder]

* 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

I agree with those saying that most of the actions of the police were incompetence not intentional. However, in this case I do wonder if after Amanda accused the police of hitting her during the interrogation, they buried the recording. They weren't used to people making statements against them and were surprised by her last statement.

How could Amanda have known that the session wasn't recorded? I just don't see her making up the head slaps since she'd think the session were videoed.

Everything about the session from the number of cops participating to the "interpreter" to the comments about Amanda telling them what they knew to be the truth.


The last part is something the PG people refuse to explain privately or publicly. To me this a key to the case. What did the chief know to be the truth, when did he know it and how did he know it?

 

[theRealBob]

-

TheRealBob,

so they couldn't figure out it wasn't Amanda's or Raffaele's or Patrick's because...

I'm not being facetious or making fun of you, I really am curious.

It still begs one of my questions as to why it took two weeks for them to release the information that there was a fourth man,

Dave

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.


Rolfe.

The Perugian police's identification of a fourth person having inolvement in Rudy's crime, and 'Rudy's personal identification' should be viewed seperately. It's possible for an honest police force, if there was such a thing as an honest police force let alone Perugia's, to treat each in an independent and isolated manner and disclose any findings in their own time for a variety of case-related reasons.

The police did publicly announce that it took nearly two weeks or something like that, to find out that they did, rather unusually, have a palm print of the fourth suspect. (Mind you, even in the act of writing that I'm beginning to wonder why they didn't just instantly turn to palm print sources)

Possibly in the initial stages of the crime's surreal non-resolution, one of the overriding factors was that Raff was acting annoyed with the cops for being dragged into something he didn't do.

And Looking Arrogant.

Cops really hate that. They really hate people who are better than them acting smart, and they have a lot of institutionally invested power over others that they can if they want to, go berserk with in that surly way they deal with things like that.
At the early stages of the investigation this was probably more important than a lot of other things. I think that the early stages of the arrests were governed by the cops abilitiy to generate mutual hate with suspects, no mater how unlikely they may turn out to be.

After that we had Mignini binging his overriding talent for visualising a crime (to fit in with his own career problems) really taking control.

On a different track I don't believe for a seond that Rudy was a police informer.

And I do believe that Rudy was finally identified (as the burglar who committed the murder to us, or to a few others as another missing link in another weird satanic ritual) while the cops were still thinking a lot (but not deeply) about this crime

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.

While it's nice to have someone clarify everything for good...

Unfortunately you didn't make it.

The simpler story is the obvious one.

Amanda is probably slightly nutty, and was acting erratic at the cop shop with all that questioniong about being the person to discover a murder in her house and that 'in the cop-shop hate'. Everybody is really, really upset that Meredith has been really disgustingly murdered. Obviously we all know Meredith's friends hated Amanda anyway, and her flatmtes didn't like her much either.

When the cops followed 'this famous lead' they used interrogation techniques which JREF members seem to believe are unreliable, to force Amanda (in less than the 56 hours randomly and anonymously offered on the internet) in a brutal way, in a foreign language, wthout a lawyer etc, etc etc...

To Say What They Told Her To Say.
Which was a load of total rubbish that had not one spec of relevance to the crime, but fitted in perfectly with the cops very first theory on that rather fateful night

Amanda, if uninvolved probably thought the cops were working it out at that particular time, when They Knew It Was Him.

Noone has ever stated in these forums the exact moment in this formula that Patrick was told by the cops to turn nasty on Amanda for 'The Blaming They Just Did.'
Was it a crucial psychological moment when Amanda found out, probably after everyone else, (or maybe, for once, before) that Patrick was now defined into the role of a nasty cops tool.
She may, in retrospect have turned the gentle ministrations of her sympathy for Patrick away from him for a time.
She hated his guts when he turned up in court, didn't she ? You could see that she was almost laughing At Him.

It's a pity that budget constraints prevent the cops being able to provide the
..................case defining tapes........................

.................if they coughed them up.........
.................it's just like The Matrix......
.................This Is Where It Ends......
..................It Ends Tonight..............

For the jurors anyway. This simple rebuttal of the interrogation c*** is all it would take.
The entire 'interview' scenario doesn't favor the cops in any way (just cough up the tapes then we'll all now) They cheated, stuffed up and lied. But that's still probably entirely irrelevant to solving the crime and doesn't prove a thing either way.

It's more of a seperate story to the murder than anything else, except for showing the Perugian cops in their true light (as usual)

The post below me begins with a quote saying incompotence was the overriding factor in the cops mistakes.

I'd go with 35% buffoonery and 65% dangerously, maliciously, and illegally abusing contitutional processs to catch up with what they just already did, not to mention what they already just said to the press....

 

[RoseMontague]

I agree with those saying that most of the actions of the police were incompetence not intentional. However, in this case I do wonder if after Amanda accused the police of hitting her during the interrogation, they buried the recording. They weren't used to people making statements against them and were surprised by her last statement.

How could Amanda have known that the session wasn't recorded? I just don't see her making up the head slaps since she'd think the session were videoed.

Everything about the session from the number of cops participating to the "interpreter" to the comments about Amanda telling them what they knew to be the truth.


The last part is something the PG people refuse to explain privately or publicly. To me this a key to the case. What did the chief know to be the truth, when did he know it and how did he know it?

The statement that the first session should not have been recored per Italian law is correct. If it had been recorded it would not have been of use against her. The law requires that if it is recorded her lawyer must be present. The law also requires that after she becomes a suspect it is recorded and her lawyer must be present. The 5:45AM statement is the one that should have been recorded and Mignini's efforts to bypass this were not successful.

However, my personal opinion is that with Amanda speaking in English and the majority of those there not having that ability it is likely they recorded each and every interview she gave, so they could play it back and make sure they and the interpreter knew exactly what she was saying. To me, this is simply common sense, even though they knew they could not use the actual recording.

 

[Rhea]

What night did he say this happened?

The night of the murder, he signed this statement at the police station that said at the night of the murder Amanda left his flat from 9 pm to 1am, when they had this statement they went to Amanda's interrogation room and told her that Raffaele stopped covering her …

 

[Rolfe]

I quite like this quote, from .org

Mignini was also reported to be "convicted" which is wrong as it was not qualified "in first degree", nobody is convicted in Italy until final verdict.

This from the guys who regularly describe Amamda as a "convicted sex killer".

Rolfe.

 

[bri1]

I quite like this quote, from .org




This from the guys who regularly describe Amamda as a "convicted sex killer".

Rolfe.

Un-frakking-believable.

 

[Diocletus]

The statement that the first session should not have been recored per Italian law is correct. If it had been recorded it would not have been of use against her. The law requires that if it is recorded her lawyer must be present. The law also requires that after she becomes a suspect it is recorded and her lawyer must be present. The 5:45AM statement is the one that should have been recorded and Mignini's efforts to bypass this were not successful.

However, my personal opinion is that with Amanda speaking in English and the majority of those there not having that ability it is likely they recorded each and every interview she gave, so they could play it back and make sure they and the interpreter knew exactly what she was saying. To me, this is simply common sense, even though they knew they could not use the actual recording.

But if the cops' assertion that she was not a suspect during the first session is rejected, then they had no business even questioning her at that point. And, there are a lot of reasons to reject this assertion. Starting with the fact that they had a statement from Raffaele that they thought belied Knox's alibi.

 

[Grinder]

We agree that if they were recording everything else including relatives' phone calls it is very hard to believe they didn't record interviews. Whether or not she was an official suspect, however that is determined, there is no good reason not to record. IIRC Mignini was recording other witness interviews and the police also recorded but that I'm sure of.

Once again, this is one case in order to protect themselves, I can see them losing the recording

The statement that the first session should not have been recored per Italian law is correct. If it had been recorded it would not have been of use against her. The law requires that if it is recorded her lawyer must be present. The law also requires that after she becomes a suspect it is recorded and her lawyer must be present. The 5:45AM statement is the one that should have been recorded and Mignini's efforts to bypass this were not successful.

However, my personal opinion is that with Amanda speaking in English and the majority of those there not having that ability it is likely they recorded each and every interview she gave, so they could play it back and make sure they and the interpreter knew exactly what she was saying. To me, this is simply common sense, even though they knew they could not use the actual recording.

 

[Diocletus]

The night of the murder, he signed this statement at the police station that said at the night of the murder Amanda left his flat from 9 pm to 1am, when they had this statement they went to Amanda's interrogation room and told her that Raffaele stopped covering her …

Raffaele's statement was probably the precipitating event in Amanda losing her marbles during the questioning. IMO.

 

[Diocletus]

We agree that if they were recording everything else including relatives' phone calls it is very hard to believe they didn't record interviews. Whether or not she was an official suspect, however that is determined, there is no good reason not to record. IIRC Mignini was recording other witness interviews and the police also recorded but that I'm sure of.

Once again, this is one case in order to protect themselves, I can see them losing the recording

Amanda handed them the gift letter the next morning in which she stated that they had hit her. If you are a cop, you know that this will get you in trouble if you were hitting the suspect. Therefore, since you've already shown yourself to be unethical by hitting the suspect, you will have no qualms about destroying the tapes that are the only tangible evidence of the hitting. You will go right away and toss the tapes in the trash.

PS: I've been thinking that one thing an American counsel should do in every case of an arrest of an American citizen for a felony in a foreign country is immediately request and obtain a copy of every written or recorded statement made by the citizen concerning the crime. If the statement shows evidence of abuse, as the gift statement did, the counsel should take serious action. I think there was a dereliction of duty here.