Continuation Part 3 - Discussion of the Amanda Knox case

[Scorpion NITE]

Well, a decent, impartial new criminal law solicitor could be an immensely helpful resource for them. Such a figure would be able to assist the Kerchers in making sense of the situation in ways that Maresca self-evidently cannot. And a new solicitor might even be able to offer some advice on the way in which the Kerchers ought to deal with Maresca from here on. In addition to these immediate issues, I suspect that a good solicitor would be able to help point the Kerchers towards various independent experts who might be able to help them find truth and closure.

Of course, it goes without saying that there's one particular (alleged) criminal solicitor in London who should not be let within 10 miles of the Kerchers under any circumstances, though I actually wouldn't be at all surprised if he either contacts them or even actually has tried to contact them in the past. Still, he can always lie and claim that he didn't contact them, I suppose..........

Excellent points.

My thoughts precisely.

 

[Grinder]

No, no, what I meant is that if she had mentioned Guede, we would have had much more reason to suspect her involvement in Kercher's murder. According to the prosecution, after all, she and RS took part in the crime with Guede and they were only trying to cover up their culpability. Why wouldn't she have ratted Guede out at that point, if she had knowledge that he was there that night and his DNA was all over the house?

As it was, her behavior in implicating Lumumba demonstrates persuasively that she had no involvement with the actual murder.

-Mike

I agree and think that she would have been hinting about Rudi from near the beginning. On the 3rd or the 4th while being questioned she could have remembered that Rudi had done this or that and seemed creepy and interested in Meredith. She could even have remembered bumping into Rudi at some time and he told her he had a date with Meredith.

If they left his stuff, they wanted him caught. Of course that brings us to the question, what did they expect him to say about their involvement once caught? No one has explained why if Amanda organized this murder that Rudi didn't talk from day one, in the Skype call for example.

 

[Scorpion NITE]

I have a niggling feeling that Lyle has been doing a little more than just browsing. Maybe that's just an over-blown machination on my part though...

I have to admit that I also have some suspicions but have neglected to pursue the matter, until/unless I receive better evidence.

 

[Micromegas]

Then I'm not clear what point you're making, when you criticise Amanda's supporters for not accepting that she "accused" Patrick. From what you're saying, the police should bear total responsibility for eliciting the statements from Amanda, as well as their actions for which they were the pretext.

What I said in that post you responded to was that Knox could have implicated herself, and that would have been a false confession.

How Lumumba's name came up isn't clear. It would have been a very fortuitous coincidence if the cops had it in for Lumumba to begin with, and a murder just happened to take place in a house shared by an employee of his. I think I recall reading that Knox was told that there was a black man's hair at the scene of the crime, and she mentioned the only black person she could think of.

The police's overbearing interrogation methods are one thing. Knox's accusation against an innocent man is another. I understand why she did it, but it was still a false accusation.

-Mike

 

[christianahannah]

Matteini, not Micheli, no?

It was Micheli which ruled that there was enough evidence against Amanda and Raffaele to proceed to trial. So I take this to mean Micheli (but maybe it is including all judges through the process).

 

[bees]

This testimony alone should make all of Filomena's assertions questionable.

Do you really believe if there was blood everywhere the police would have waited for Filomena to authorize breaking down the door.

I think the conversation might have been more along the lines of "there's blood in the bathroom - Meredith isn't here but I hope she's OK", which would be consistent with the heavy period type of blood spill that sometimes happens.

 

[komponisto]

Matteini, not Micheli, no?

No, Matteini was the GIP (Giudice dell'Indagine Preliminare, "Judge of the Preliminary Investigation"); Micheli was the GUP (Guidice dell'Udienza Preliminare, "Judge of the Preliminary Hearing").

 

[Antony]

What I said in that post you responded to was that Knox could have implicated herself, and that would have been a false confession.

How Lumumba's name came up isn't clear. It would have been a very fortuitous coincidence if the cops had it in for Lumumba to begin with, and a murder just happened to take place in a house shared by an employee of his. I think I recall reading that Knox was told that there was a black man's hair at the scene of the crime, and she mentioned the only black person she could think of.

The police's overbearing interrogation methods are one thing. Knox's accusation against an innocent man is another. I understand why she did it, but it was still a false accusation.

-Mike

Do you agree that the police, and not Amanda, bear responsibility for these statements and the actions of the police that followed them?

 

[Micromegas]

Do you agree that the police, and not Amanda, bear responsibility for these statements and the actions of the police that followed them?

I'm not talking about the Lumumba slander case, or any sort of legal concepts here. If you don't feel that Knox was "responsible" for her actions, fine.

I understand why she did what she did, I don't envy her, but I think she has to bear some of the moral responsibility for what she said about Lumumba. And the note she sent the police the next day suggests she felt the same way.

-Mike

 

[katy_did]

She signed the statement. And the note she wrote to police the next day made it clear that (as davefoc pointed out) she quite understandably regretted implicating Lumumba.

For the millionth time, I'm not saying that means she was guilty. I think Knox was innocent of Kercher's murder. I'm just opposed to the way people infantilize Knox, as if there could have been no other conceivable outcome for that interrogation than her signing a statement accusing an innocent man of Kercher's murder. Obviously she could have accused Guede, which would have been much more in keeping with the prosecution's theory that Knox and Sollecito were only trying to cover up their involvement. But just when you figure she would have ratted on Guede, she accused Lumumba.

In addition, she could have signed a false confession to the murder. Contrary to what some people here would have you believe, that would entail signing a statement confessing that she had murdered Kercher. That's not what she did.

-Mike

So far as I can tell, the only real difference between your point of view and what some other people are arguing is over the type of false 'confession' Knox made: everyone seems to agree it was a coerced false 'confession' (quotation marks painstakingly added!).

From what I've gathered, you believe that she was pressured into naming Lumumba - hit on the back of the head, told she'd be in jail for 30 years, etc - and caved in to make the interrogation end. If true, this would be a 'coerced-compliant' statement. Others think that - having been told there was hard evidence she was at the scene, and having been told she might not remember it because she was 'traumatized' - she momentarily came to half-believe she might have been present (I say half-believe, because her subsequent written statement made it clear that the memory of being at Raffaele's was always stronger). This would be a false internalized statement. As I understand it, many confessions are a combination of both of these, and actually I think this is probably true in Amanda's case as well.

Given that, as davefoc rightly pointed out, we have very little information about the context from which these statements emerged, it seems to me that either of these theories is valid. For me, the possibility that there was an internalized element to Amanda's statement seems very likely, since it fits with Amanda's own testimony about the interrogation and her note written in the aftermath; I also find it fairly unlikely she would've known enough about these kinds of statements to convincingly fake one. I'm sure that fear played a part in her breaking down as well. But without a tape of the interrogation, we can only theorize.

Intuitively, I certainly think it's easier for many people to understand why someone might be pressured into confessing with threats and violence than it is to understand why someone might truly come to wrongly believe (even briefly) they might have been present at a crime. But the latter is no less a true and documented occurrence than the former, even if less intuitively understandable - to refer to it as "woo" just shows an ignorance as to the accepted theories of why people falsely 'confess'. I'm also not sure why you think this would 'infantilize' Amanda, since if she was coerced into making either type of statement I would hold the flawed and coercive interrogation tactics to be responsible for it rather than Amanda herself.

The distinction between confession/accusation with elements of confession has been covered, but just to say: if someone is coerced into making a confession, then obviously they are only going to be coerced into saying something that the police want them to say, something the police 'know to be true'. I highly doubt the police had any thoughts at this stage that Amanda was the rapist/murderer; if they suspected her of anything, it was covering up for the real rapist/murderer. And so this is what she 'confessed' to.

 

[Diocletus]

I'm not talking about the Lumumba slander case, or any sort of legal concepts here. If you don't feel that Knox was "responsible" for her actions, fine.

I understand why she did what she did, I don't envy her, but I think she has to bear some of the moral responsibility for what she said about Lumumba. And the note she sent the police the next day suggests she felt the same way.

-Mike

Well, you win the prize 'cause Hellmann agrees with you.

 

[misteratunta]

Seems the guilter mantra on other sites at the moment is "She WAS guilty - of slander".

So I'm writing my true crime novel "Amanda Knox - Slander in Italy".

It'll sell millions.

 

[smkovalinksy]

Hellman is calling the murder of Meredith Kercher "unsolved" in recent press. I had hoped with acquittals, that Guede as the sole culpable agent might begin to dawn clearly. But with the Supreme Court ruling on more than one agent, I suppose this is not possible. A shame, because it seems the most likely scenario, with reason on its side. As someone on Websleuths posted when Knox and Sollecito were compared to Homolka/Bernardo, Folie a deux is not unusual, but folie a trois is almost unheard of.

Miss Kercher's killing is now considered "unsolved" following the acquittal of Miss Knox and Raffaele Sollecito, the appeals judge who freed them has said. The murder "will remain an unsolved truth", said judge Claudio Pratillo Hellmann.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/wor...-Perugia-after-Meredith-Kercher-acquittal.htm

 

[katy_did]

Carlo Dalla Vedova in Porta a Porta (around 42 min)
http://www.rai.tv/dl/RaiTV/programmi/media/ContentItem-4eb31be0-b058-48f9-b272-2416c155440d.html#p=0


He says:


So even he is unsure, but expects "formula piena" (530.1)

Apparently Bongiorno too:

Dopo essere stato assolto, Sollecito ha abbracciato la Bongiorno, urlandole ''Grazie, grazie, grazie''. Ha quindi chiesto al suo difensore alcune spiegazioni tecniche. La Bongiorno ha ribadito che l'assoluzione è stata disposta con formula piena ''per non aver commesso il fatto''.

Although it doesn't actually quote what she said, so I suppose it could be the paper reading more into it than was there.

 

[bees]

Good article here:
http://www.independent.co.uk/opinio...refer-a-crazy-story-to-the-truth-2365540.html

 

[smkovalinksy]

Seems the guilter mantra on other sites at the moment is "She WAS guilty - of slander".

So I'm writing my true crime novel "Amanda Knox - Slander in Italy".

It'll sell millions.

 

[Draca]

Hellman is calling the murder of Meredith Kercher "unsolved" in recent press. I had hoped with acquittals, that Guede as the sole culpable agent might begin to dawn clearly. But with the Supreme Court ruling on more than one agent, I suppose this is not possible. A shame, because it seems the most likely scenario, with reason on its side. As someone on Websleuths posted when Knox and Sollecito were compared to Homolka/Bernardo, Folie a deux is not unusual, but folie a trois is almost unheard of.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/wor...-Perugia-after-Meredith-Kercher-acquittal.htm

I read the opposite, that Hellmann said Rudy Guede was the killer.

PRESIDENT OF COURT AND NOW FOR AMANDA 'INNOCENT - "For the moment Amanda Knox is absolutely innocent", said President of the Assize Court of Appeal in Perugia, Claudio Pratillo Hellmann, who met with reporters. Concerning the return of the American student in the U.S., the judge noted that "we could not keep it here in advance of the pending Supreme Court."

PRESIDENT OF THE COURT ON MURDER TRUTH 'WICKED - the murder of Meredith Kercher "will remain an unsolved truth" according to President of the Assize Court of Appeal in Perugia, Claudio Pratillo Hellmann. "No - he said - one can say how the facts are. The one is Rudy Guede."

http://www.ansa.it/web/notizie/rubriche/cronaca/2011/09/21/visualizza_new.html_700992532.html


I read this as him answering a question about if the murder would be unsolved.

 

[smkovalinksy]

I read the opposite, that Hellmann said Rudy Guede was the killer.

PRESIDENT OF COURT AND NOW FOR AMANDA 'INNOCENT - "For the moment Amanda Knox is absolutely innocent", said President of the Assize Court of Appeal in Perugia, Claudio Pratillo Hellmann, who met with reporters. Concerning the return of the American student in the U.S., the judge noted that "we could not keep it here in advance of the pending Supreme Court."

PRESIDENT OF THE COURT ON MURDER TRUTH 'WICKED - the murder of Meredith Kercher "will remain an unsolved truth" according to President of the Assize Court of Appeal in Perugia, Claudio Pratillo Hellmann. "No - he said - one can say how the facts are. The one is Rudy Guede."

http://www.ansa.it/web/notizie/rubriche/cronaca/2011/09/21/visualizza_new.html_700992532.html


I read this as him answering a question about if the murder would be unsolved.

Yes, he is saying that, there. But to call the murder "unsolved", when Guede is in prison.....and the Kerchers now want to seek out who were "the others" whom the Supreme Court ruled acted with Guede.

 

[Swimfish]

I think it's more nuanced than that. I think the wiki article about the case is incorrect in its overemphasis on "human rights breaches", and I don't think that the police or PM were ever officially censured.

There are two totally distinct questions here: 1) Did Knox make certain self-incriminating statements without having been read her rights or having access to a lawyer? 2) Did police and/or prosecutors act improperly in the commission of those statements.

Violations of fair trial rights, including the right to legal representation, the right against self-incrimination, and right to understand charges in your own language, are considered "human rights breaches" under Article 6 of the European Convention on Human Rights (ECHR). Do you really believe that the right to a fair trial is not a fundamental human right?

Your example describes a spontanious confession of a crime by a non-custodial witness. In that scenario the confession and the fruit of that confession would be fully admissiable in a US court and under the USMJ. I'll go out on a limb here and assert that even under Article 6 of the ECHR, which underlies modern Italian civil rights law you are describing a fully admissible confession. Do you really believe that on the night of Nov 5th and early Nov 6th, AK was a non-custodial witness? Even the ISC didn't find that to be true.

LJ you are far too kind to the police in this matter and are even making up scenarios that show how some police could have been acting properly in another country, at another place, under completely diferent circumstances.

Unfortunately, that is not what happened to AK in Perugia on the night of Nov 5th and 6th, 2007.

I stand by my point, the police and PM in this matter were found by the ISC to have acted improperly and violated AK human rights. The sanction provided by the ISC for the conduct was administrative and weak. But it was a sanction. That they may later be subject to punitive sanctions for the misconduct does not mean that the ISC found that they acted properly.

The PM is, or should be as a judge, well versed in requirements under Italian law which protect fundamental human rights, including the right to a fair trial. This was not an act of incompetence.

 

[Dan O.]

...

Some other issues, the break in was staged, so why would RG stage a break in?

...

A large portion of your post has drifted off topic for this thread. If you want to discuss the possible involvement of others, take it up on the main thread.

As for the staged break in, judge Hellmann just ruled that Amanda and Raffaele were innocent of staging the break in because it did not happen. This is different from his rulling about the murder itself where he ruled that they did not commit the crime. Hellman is explicitly saying that the break in was not staged. If you want to argue against this, you will need to bring more to the table than you personal beliefs.