Continuation Part 3 - Discussion of the Amanda Knox case

[JREF2010]

They bugged the rooms and tapped the phones, but didn't record the interrogation, so either the police were incompetent or corrupt.

I am rather new to the case so I am wondering did the wiretap and bugging happen before the interrogation?

Also how was the Amanda confession not found inadmissible to the court for the lack of legal representation and recording of the interrogation?

yes, the questura has bugged rooms and the cell phones of amanda and raffaele were tapped before the interrogation. I'm not sure who everyone is that were recorded and followed, much of it openly discussed, after the the fact.

Also, after the interrogation, a lot of tapping and bugged rooms.

Obviously nothing was found to support the prosecution. But the missing interrogation tapes has been a fact of foul play.

If your new to interrogations too, like I was ,the Michael Crowe case is really well documented on youtube, theres also The Thin Blue Line too that happened in Texas but had a interrogation and signed papers from a innocent man (really well done movie-true story).
Its hard to believe, even after believing it goes on... scary its so common.
Theres some great articles to read by the ones who have done it. I think some places have adopted laws that require recording and allowing accused lawyers.

False Confessions , is a good search term.

 

[Kaosium]

Can someone tell me why this post is wrong:

The short version: it twists the facts. More specifically....

Certainly there are false confessions. But there are far fewer cases in which someone fingers an innocent person. Furthermore, Raffaele Sollecito admitted that he told "a bunch of ********" to the police in his first alibi. Lying to the police after your girlfriend's roommate was slaughtered is probably not a great idea.

There are also far fewer cases in which multiple assailants are arrested, even allowing for a false accusation of this nature. It was also used to arrest her, and termed a 'confession' so it's not like she was simply 'fingering an innocent person.' Raffaele was stoned when he was 'interviewed' by ILE, and likely got mixed up with what day was which, his colorful terminology notwithstanding.

The "unbelievably bad" DNA evidence also includes a nice drop of Knox's blood that she herself admits wasn't there the day before. I would say that it is incredibly bad luck to have bled on the same night that your room mate happened to be murdered in the next room, particularly on top of your having given a "false confession."

There is a drop of blood, or more exactly the trace of a smear of blood on the faucet, if you look really close you can see it here:

It's not particularly notable in the crime scene videos under normal light where it's featured at almost exactly 3:00, 4:00 and then 4:32.

There's a better picture under bright lights that shows it better, but I can't seem to find it. Perhaps Pilot can help me out.

Amanda testified the bathroom was 'clean' when she left, not that the trace of a blood smear wasn't there. It could easily have been missed, and those familiar with college student ideas on cleanliness might describe the bathroom in those crime scene videos themselves as 'clean' or at least 'mostly clean' anyway!

It was probably from her earring adventure which had bleed a few days before the murder, and went unnoticed as it wasn't obvious. It isn't mixed with anything and Massei makes the point that it is coagulated and 'separate morphically' from the other drops found in the sink.

Finally, the bare footprint on the bath mat. Suppose you still think it is Rudy Guede's, despite the fact that it doesn't fit his foot on about 8 of the 10 or so measurements. It's pretty amazing that the rest of the footprint isn't there, nor are there any visible prints leading up to it, despite the fact that it was so bloody. Most defenders of Knox have to come up with a ridiculous argument about how that lone footprint got there. But the other hypothesis is that it's Sollecito's footprint. Interestingly, it fits his foot on about 8 of the 10 or so measurements, and there is at least one bare print matching his in the hallway.

Take a look at them, and also at what the stain itself is. It's a partial print on a fuzzy bathmat with potentially uneven distribution of weight and a certain amount of 'spread' from the surface contacted. That perfect 'measurements' even could apply is dubious, although I suppose one could find places in both of them that 'match' to 'millimetre precision'--but it wouldn't mean much.

Irony defined is trying to pretend that a lack of contextual cues from Rudy as to how his footprint got there is therefore 'evidence' of it being the only residue of Raffaele being involved in the murder. Rudy was there, he got into blood, he washed it up--none of that is contested. The only trace of Raffaele ever being in the cottage is the cigarette butt, now that the DNA is exposed. Thus trying to explain how Raffaele got into that blood, what happened to the rest of the traces of it, and how it fits into a theory of the murder requires even more incredulity than the argument presented.

There is other evidence, but I just wanted to highlight these so that others would understand that there are reasons for suspecting Knox and Sollecito.

They're all just as crappy as these are, if not more so.

 

[bolint]

Why must you lie like that? Are you a tool of the prosecution?

Is this critical thinking at its best?

If you think they lied about their alibi, put together your case and argue it with evidence. Don't just echo unsupported claims and run away.

Let's start with the computer evidence. But don't run away.

Fact 1. Raffaele claimed using his computer for hours, including web browisng.
Fact 2. There should be traces of this activity if someone had worked on the computer.
Fact 3. Not a single trace has been found even by the defence that anybody was working on that computer between 21:26 to 24:00.

That is the naked truth.

You must have a solid refutation, come on, bring it on.

 

[Malkmus]

praying at JREF? what's the world coming to?

do you think your relationship with knox will continue if she's acquitted . Will you buy her book or watch a movie about it?

If Knox and Sollecito get out of this mess, I'd definitely read a book by them. Anyone who has an interest in this case I think would, as there would certainly be a lot of revelations, given she hasn't been able to do interviews during the entire 4 years of this. A lot of questions would probably get answered.

 

[Chris_Halkides]

false confessions are often accusations

Caper,

The person you quoted said, "Certainly there are false confessions. But there are far fewer cases in which someone fingers an innocent person." Excuse me, but many false confessions include an element of accusation as well, as has been documented here on many occasions. The Norfolk Four and the Karl Fontenot cases come quickly to mind. The reason is that the false confession attempts to minimize the blame upon oneself, in effect, "I was there, but I was not the lead dog."

 

[bolint]

What's more bang for the buck?

What costs more $$$?
To record a person who is sitting in a room, (most likely with 1 way mirrored windows in it),
and answer direct questions from a police officer
or
record, and transcribe probably hours and hours of conversation taken from a mobile cell phone?

Amazing.
I simply corrected a fact, JREF2010 mistakenly thought to have proved a lie black and white.
And now I see a cost analysis and work organization argument.

I hope that you too don't feel that any of us are gangin' up on ya,
we're not, we are all in different parts of the world and just wanna debate with ya, that's all.
And you do bring up some good points sometimes...
Peace, RW

No problem.
I never in my life got unnerved in forum debates.

 

[bolint]

Nothing could be less vague, or less ambiguous, than solid forensic, indisputable evidence. Such is not open to interpretation.

Everything is open to interpretation in court.
Do you think if the bra clasp had been collected on the first day, then Bongiorno would say "OK, we have lost, let's go home." ?

 

[Chris_Halkides]

too many profiles

Everything is open to interpretation in court.
Do you think if the bra clasp had been collected on the first day, then Bongiorno would say "OK, we have lost, let's go home." ?

If the clasp had been collected on the first day and it still had several profiles on it, it would still be a highly flawed piece of evidence.

 

[bolint]

If the clasp had been collected on the first day and it still had several profiles on it, it would still be a highly flawed piece of evidence.

Do you think if the clasp had been collected on the first day and it had had no several profiles on it, then Bongiorno would say "OK, we have lost, let's go home."?

 

[Kaosium]

Do you think if the clasp had been collected on the first day and it had had no several profiles on it, then Bongiorno would say "OK, we have lost, let's go home."?

She might have started talking about 'fast track' if there was other evidence to go with it. For example, were the evidence against Raffaele and Amanda the same as the the nature and consistency of the evidence against Rudy she'd be remiss in her duties if she didn't mention the 'fast track' option.

 

[smkovalinksy]

Everything is open to interpretation in court.
Do you think if the bra clasp had been collected on the first day, then Bongiorno would say "OK, we have lost, let's go home." ?

In some cases where there is indisputable forensic evidence, an insanity or mitigating argument must be made.

 

[Grinder]

Originally Posted by Kestrel
An interview with investigator Giobbi revealed that it was Raffaele's love of pizza that led to his downfall.
Bolint - Interestingly, but not unexpectedly, the source of this pizza story and alleged interview is none other than Paul Ciolino.


Quote:
During the panel discussion, Ciolino retold the story of his meeting with Giobbi during his investigation, “Guy who arrested Amanda ‘I said to him, ‘you don’t have any physical evidence, you don’t have eyewitnesses, you don’t have a murder weapon, what do you got?’ Tell me…convince my why this girl did this?”

According to Ciolino, officer Giobbi only needed to know one thing to determine guilt, “He says, ‘I’ll tell you why…….she was eating pizza!”.

Did Giobbi sue Ciolino for calumnia or anything else?

 

[Dougm]

A lack of critical thinking.

Here is where I think that the critical thinking comes in. The evidence proving a case that they are innocent is stronger than the evidence that they are guilty.

Given that, reasonable doubt is a slam dunk.

 

[Rolfe]

BBC News this evening is running an interview with Dr. Sollecito about how he and his family and Raffaele are coping. Barely a mention of Amanda. The interviewer asks him why he thinks Raffaele didn't look at the intimate pictures of Meredith's murdered body!

What would have been the correct reaction to these pictures, from a young man falsely accused of murder? What should he have done, not to have his reaction questioned as apparently being suspicious? Personally, I can well understand why he wouldn't want to look at such appalling images as these allegedly were. I'd have thought that staring at the pictures was even more likely to be construed as suggestive of guilt.

Poor guy. He's a final year student in Perugia and has managed to remain a virgin up till then. He gets his first real girlfriend at that point, and intimacy ensues. Girlfriend's flatmate is horrifically murdered, and for very strange reasons, girlfriend attracts attention of the police.

Meredith wasn't Raffaele's flatmate. He'd only just met her. She wasn't killed in his home. He wasn't the one who attracted the attention of the police initially, by swivelling his hips and bursting into tears. Apart from getting 31st October and 1st November mixed up when recounting his movements under the influence of a joint or two (and did be really, or was he asked about 31st October?), he doesn't seem to have said anything desperately unwise. He certainly didn't start recounting dream-like sequences where he was in the cottage when Meredith was killed, or implicate an innocent man.

There's approximately the backside of bugger-all connecting him to this crime. But he's been in prison for four years, from about a week after the day he lost his virginity. He's in a men's prison, which probably isn't as pleasant even as the place where Amanda is banged up.

And he's Italian. He doesn't have an easy option of leaving the country when he's finally acquitted. If he leaves, it will be a hard option, to leave his homeland.

Poor guy.

Rolfe.

 

[Grinder]

Rudy said they were
- since when Rudy is reliable? Why they believe him and do not believe Amanda and Raffale? After all, his DNA was in that room, correct? Is he more credible that the other two? What about the Skype call, where he said they weren't involved? What about the fact that he said they were involved, 5 months after his arrest?

And he said that it happened at 9:20.

 

[Dougm]

BBC News this evening is running an interview with Dr. Sollecito about how he and his family and Raffaele are coping. Barely a mention of Amanda. The interviewer asks him why he thinks Raffaele didn't look at the intimate pictures of Meredith's murdered body!

What would have been the correct reaction to these pictures, from a young man falsely accused of murder? What should he have done, not to have his reaction questioned as apparently being suspicious? Personally, I can well understand why he wouldn't want to look at such appalling images as these allegedly were. I'd have thought that staring at the pictures was even more likely to be construed as suggestive of guilt.

Poor guy. He's a final year student in Perugia and has managed to remain a virgin up till then. He gets his first real girlfriend at that point, and intimacy ensues. Girlfriend's flatmate is horrifically murdered, and for very strange reasons, girlfriend attracts attention of the police.

Meredith wasn't Raffaele's flatmate. He'd only just met her. She wasn't killed in his home. He wasn't the one who attracted the attention of the police initially, by swivelling his hips and bursting into tears. Apart from getting 31st October and 1st November mixed up when recounting his movements under the influence of a joint or two (and did be really, or was he asked about 31st October?), he doesn't seem to have said anything desperately unwise. He certainly didn't start recounting dream-like sequences where he was in the cottage when Meredith was killed, or implicate an innocent man.

There's approximately the backside of bugger-all connecting him to this crime. But he's been in prison for four years, from about a week after the day he lost his virginity. He's in a men's prison, which probably isn't as pleasant even as the place where Amanda is banged up.

And he's Italian. He doesn't have an easy option of leaving the country when he's finally acquitted. If he leaves, it will be a hard option, to leave his homeland.

Poor guy.

Rolfe.

I know. This guy is like the guy who wakes up in the morning, and, half asleep, goes out to get the morning paper, and is hit by a bus. I am glad they are doing a story on him and his family. Of course, although it is not fair, he is simply not as interesting as Amanda to the masses that watch TV.

I sure hope he gets out and can put his life back together.

 

[Grinder]

Caper,

The drop(s) of blood is(are) on the faucet. It shows Amanda's DNA profile but no other. The only way to date it is to assume that when Amanda described the bathroom as clean, what she meant was that the blood on the faucet was not present. Given how the faucet looked, I think it is quite possible that Amanda overlooked the blood. The whole argument looks like an attempt at misdirection. Instead of acknowledging the Conti-Vecchiotti smackdown of the forensic police, it attempts to deflect attention away from ILE's mistakes and toward an inconsequential bit of blood in a bathroom.
ETA
Raffaele later said it was the police who said words to the effect, "Don't give us fertilizer." Raffaele has had two basic stories: what he said on 5 November, and what he said on every other occasion.

Why wouldn't Amanda just say that she had bled a couple of days before when cleaning her ear pierce and she thought she had cleaned it up but maybe she missed the a drop or two.

If she was really bleeding the night of the murder, one would expect that the bathroom would have been cleaned but if not one would expect that she would have covered for that by giving a bleeding story of some sort.

They didn't coordinate an alibi, they left blood totally visible and pointed this blood out to the PP, they left the blood on the mat that Raf knew he had put there (PG theory) and she tells them the bathroom was clean.

The scenario for guilt just makes no sense. And that's without trying to figure out how the three got together or why none of them has come clean.

 

[Rolfe]

I think Rolfe was mentioning this 'drug dealer' element to show that Meredith, like Amanda, was not squeaky clean (although still relatively normal for someone her age in her habits, as Amanda was).
The fact of the matter is that Giacomo had about 5 plants, and if he did 'deal' it was only very small quantities and to friends.

Just for the record, I knew all that, and was indulging in a bit of hyperbole. I was hinting at how the vilification of Meredith might have proceeded if the girls' positions had been reversed with Amanda the victim and Meredith falsely accused.

She was no more and no less a saint or a she-devil than Amanda. The rest is nothing but spin.

Rolfe.

 

[NewtonTrino]

I still think the defense has been pretty bad during this case. Are they restricted in their time heavily to make their case?

 

[bolint]

She might have started talking about 'fast track' if there was other evidence to go with it. For example, were the evidence against Raffaele and Amanda the same as the the nature and consistency of the evidence against Rudy she'd be remiss in her duties if she didn't mention the 'fast track' option.

Why? She would still have the option "the police planted it".