Continuation Part 3 - Discussion of the Amanda Knox case

[JREF2010]

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/wor...Knox-Guilty-or-innocent-five-reasons-why.html


Here's an interesting guilty/innocent analysis. I'd say that the thing that gives me pause is Amanda saying she was in the kitchen with her hands over her ears while Patrick killed Meredith. To me this detail kinda makes me think she had something to do with the murder.

Obviously it's partly a lie because A. Patrick didn't do it. and B. If the real killer was killing Meredith she'd certainly not be in the kitchen with her hands over her ears unless she knew she was not in danger of being killed herself.

Usually when people lie they mix a truth in with a lie. I think she may have been on drugs and hazy and not quite aware that her flatmate was being killed, just thinking she was screaming or being raped and she just stood in the kitchen with her hands over her ears.

Also the lies about being with her boyfriend and watching a movie and the fact that they BOTH turned off their phones is very odd to me.

That was a seed of interest to me too, in the beginning. But then over the years none of the evidence of the crime supported my fictional-mental picture I was creating.

To be open to the other side of the story, that Amanda didnt want Patrick to call back a second time, and change his mind, to have her come to work is a very 20yr old reason to turn off the cell phone. imo. (especially on a holiday and with a new boyfriend in Italy...on a cold November evening, who would want to go work a few hours for low wages?)

Raffaele, was most likely the same reason, though the defense said there was a weak debate about his phone wasnt turned off or something. He didnt get on the stand so there's so much we havent heard yet.
Raffaele will possibly speak of the interrogation, the cell phones, who knows what all he might have to say....maybe even confront issues like the Diary. He might even be of more interest than Amanda, because we know what she said on the stand.

And we still don't have a very good idea of the pc activity due to the bumbling work of the computer experts. So even more data may be released from the defense work in relate to the pc. I hope so.

 

[Caper]

Another question for you experts. Did she or her boyfriend buy bleach the following morning or did they NOT? That's a really significant question IMO.

It is really significant.... and the answer is of course is no. The first time I heard of this case was back in 07' on a nightline report. Damn I wish someone had it. But they brought up the bleach receipt then and reported it as fact (I think).

Your other post about "When in Rome" is not irrational as well. But keep in mind Merdith died between "9 and 9:30".... and I think there is an alibi for the both of them at 9:30 (computer activity I believe).

I know you mentioned the cell phones off as being suspicious. But the cell phones were reportedly off at 8:30pm. If they were turned off at that time for the reason you may believe they turned them off, then that would mean they premeditated the crime.... and premeditation doesn't seem to go with the sex game gone wrong theory... or the theory that she was so drunk or drugged out of her mind that she got caught up in something she didn't want to.

 

[Machiavelli]

By the way, for what it's worth (which is to say quite a lot), Luca Maori - Sollecito's #2 lawyer - stated on the Porta a Porta show last night that he was totally certain that the acquittals were of the 530.1 variety. And, as I've pointed out already, I consider that it was unlikely that any of the prosecution lawyers would want to attach themselves to a position on this issue - even if they were certain - owing to a respect for judicial propriety (i.e. waiting for the written confirmation before second-guessing the court). So Maori's certainty has, in my opinion, got added impact.

But maybe Machiavelli/Yummi would like to contact Maori directly, and tell him that he knows nothing about Italian law, that he has a "plain wrong argument", that he has "an argument which (he) believed to be rational, and was instead a piece of false information". Machiavelli/Yummi can add that Maori is "lecturing (me and/or others) teaching false things on a topic (he) did not know about... and that point, was a point where (he was) proven to be not factual and not rational."

I look forward to that exchange of views

Maori is not ignorant, Maori is just lying, because he is serving the interest of his client talking in television. He feels sure that it is a 530.1 acquittal. I would also "feel sure" of that on tv if I was paid for that. (or maybe Hellman told him; maybe Maori was not the only one to be paid).

Mignini, Maresca, Comodi all declared they don't know whether it is 530.1 or 530.2. Three important persons in the trial say what I said (as well as Giulia Bongiorno) because this is simpky the obvious: it is impossible to know, until you see what is written in the dispositivo. The fact is in a sloppy reading Hellman didn't say it, and that is a fact: thus nobody knows, and whoever asserts he knows for sure is a fraud, because it's impossible to know.

Moreover, Hellmann himself declared on La Repubblica that he doesn't know if Knox and Sollecito were on the scene of crime. Angeletti, a lay judge, says he had no certanity. This is all incompatible with 530.1.

Finally, I have already demonstrated - gave a link, a quote, and I can give many more - that "non avere comesso il fatto" does not mean 530.1. So I don't know why you are desperately try to deny the obvious but I'll not investigate the mystery.

 

[Grinder]

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/wor...Knox-Guilty-or-innocent-five-reasons-why.html


Here's an interesting guilty/innocent analysis. I'd say that the thing that gives me pause is Amanda saying she was in the kitchen with her hands over her ears while Patrick killed Meredith. To me this detail kinda makes me think she had something to do with the murder.

Obviously it's partly a lie because A. Patrick didn't do it. and B. If the real killer was killing Meredith she'd certainly not be in the kitchen with her hands over her ears unless she knew she was not in danger of being killed herself.

Usually when people lie they mix a truth in with a lie. I think she may have been on drugs and hazy and not quite aware that her flatmate was being killed, just thinking she was screaming or being raped and she just stood in the kitchen with her hands over her ears.

Also the lies about being with her boyfriend and watching a movie and the fact that they BOTH turned off their phones is very odd to me.

If she was led to the story, which I believe, and she was asked to imagine what it would have been like I don't find the detail of covering the ears to be strange at all.

The phone story has been around forever. Why would they turn off their phones in relationship to the crime? It makes more sense that if they turned off their phones (as I understand it Amanda said she turned it off but Raf's couldn't be determined) they would have done it to keep people from interrupting them while at home having fun.

If they were committing the crime they would have left them on at Raf's and hoped an incoming text would ping the phone there.

 

[RoseMontague]

However, here we come to the most important development, what happens is that, not exactly that Stefanoni or the police refuses or denies to provide them with the data files (as Halkides claims); what happens instead is that it is the court who decides that the scientific police must not provide the remaining documentation, including the raw data files, do the defences. It is thus the court who decides that further analysis and discussion on this remaining data would not be useful to the trial.

Yes, thank you so much for this. It has been my position that the court refused the defense request all along.

After the reading of the C&V report, by the way, it is clear that in fact the above court assessment was correct, since the raw data play no role in C&V’s conclusions (C&V report would and conclusions would have been identical if based on the existing documentation instead of the raw data).

It is my opinion that these files were very helpful to C&V but I will let the DNA folks argue this one. To me the very clear fact you stress is not clear at all.

 

[Diocletus]

Machiavelli--A question (or two):

If illegal police coercion is alleged as a defense to a charge of slander arising from a police interrogation, then (i) who has the burden of proving the coercion or lack of coercion (prosecution or defense) and (ii) by what standard must the coercion or lack of coercion be proved (e.g., likely, probable, certain, etc.)?

 

[Scorpion NITE]

Maori is not ignorant, Maori is just lying, because he is serving the interest of his client talking in television. He feels sure that it is a 530.1 acquittal. I would also "feel sure" of that on tv if I was paid for that. (or maybe Hellman told him; maybe Maori was not the only one to be paid)..........

Ah Yes, of course.

The fall-back position if you are shown to be wrong.

 

[Grinder]

Violation of "right to counsel" doesn't mean she didn't do it.. There are plenty of times here in the US where proper protocol wasn't followed leading to the case being dismissed even though we know full well the person was 100 percent guilty. I don't know why people keep bringing it up. Look up Miranda vs Arizona and you'll understand why the US has the Miranda warning read.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Miranda_v._Arizona

The guy was 100 percent guilty, confessed and recanted and got off because he was not informed of his right to remain silent.

So all of that is irrelevant in my opinion.


Another question for you experts. Did she or her boyfriend buy bleach the following morning or did they NOT? That's a really significant question IMO.

No being questioned improperly doesn't make her innocent.

No bleach was purchased the following morning. Raf had two bottles at his flat. There were no bleach receipts. The housekeeper for Raf said the bleach appeared to be the same amount as she had left it. There was no evidence of any cleanup with bleach.

 

[LondonJohn]

I never understood the logic of the prosecutions turning off the phone's argument. It is implied that they did that so a future police investigation could not trace their whereabouts from their cell phone activity. But that would imply premeditation, a planning of a crime in advance and something that was not argued in court by the prosecution.

Th fact that a movie was watched and the fact that Amanda was with Raffaele that night were verified by witness testimony and computer records.

The time of death and opportunity at that time is a factor to consider as well as Meredith's unusual cell phone activity, lack of changing clothes if not attacked immediately, lack of calling her parents back if not attacked immediately, just a few minutes after 9PM and at a time where Raffaele's alibi is unbroken.

But not only that. Also, consider the following: If the phones were turned off, then they were turned off at some time before 9pm. Therefore they would have to have been turned off while Knox and Sollecito were still at Sollecito's apartment. So the prosecution claim is that 1) Knox and Sollecito were pre-meditating some sort of act against Meredith before they had even left Sollecito's apartment, and 2) They realised that their phones could provide incriminating evidence of their location if they took their phones to the cottage with them and left the phones turned on.

But if Knox and Sollecito were so aware of the location-tracking capability of their mobile phones, and they were still at Sollecito's apartment when they decided to nullify this factor, then there is a blindingly obvious question that needs to be asked: why wouldn't their best option - by FAR - have been to leave their phones turned on but leave them inside Sollecito's apartment, while they went over to the cottage to do whatever they had planned to do to Meredith?

Any way you look at it, this would have been far and away the most logical option for Knox and Sollecito if indeed they were already planning nefarious actions that night. Just think about it for a moment: while turning one's phone off does eradicate the possibility of location tracking, surely it would have been beneficial to them to have been able to positively show that their phones (at least) had been in Sollecito's apartment all night? That would have been possible if they had left their phones switched on and lying in Sollecito's apartment. And there's a second very significant factor: neither Knox nor Sollecito knew who might have been calling them that evening. Friends, relatives, drinking buddies all might have called that evening. It would have been far easier - and far more credible - for Knox or Sollecito to claim that they hadn't heard their phones ring (e.g. we were in the shower, or we were having passionate sex, or we were watching a movie with the sound turned loud), than having to explain why their phones were turned off.

Sollecito is most definitely very technology-savvy. And both Knox and Sollecito are bright and analytical. I can't think of a single good reason why - if they were planning to do something dreadful before they'd even left Sollecito's apartment, and if they realised the potential problem of location tracking on their mobile phones - they wouldn't have left their turned-on handsets in Sollecito's apartment rather than turning them off.

 

[Grinder]

The time of death and opportunity at that time is a factor to consider as well as Meredith's unusual cell phone activity, lack of changing clothes if not attacked immediately, lack of calling her parents back if not attacked immediately, just a few minutes after 9PM and at a time where Raffaele's alibi is unbroken.

The Massei report includes a blood alcohol of .43g/l and the english girls said they didn't drink. How did she get the alcohol in her system. BTW, that reading is not the one that needed to be thrown out because of police contamination.

 

[LondonJohn]

Ah Yes, of course.

The fall-back position if you are shown to be wrong.

And not only that, he also appears totally blind to the rather obvious motivation for Maresca, Mignini and Comodi to try to obfuscate over whether it was 530.1 or 530.2.

(In case it needs spelling out: 530.2 acquittals make the prosecutors (and Maresca) look reasonable, competent and honest, while 530.1 acquittals make them look vindictive, incompetent and mendacious.)

 

[DarkStar2011]

I never understood the logic of the prosecutions turning off the phone's argument. It is implied that they did that so a future police investigation could not trace their whereabouts from their cell phone activity. But that would imply premeditation, a planning of a crime in advance and something that was not argued in court by the prosecution.

Plus, if they did premeditate the murder, turning off the phones would be a dumb move. Rather, leave the phones at his apartment, so records will show that they were there the whole time. (If they were to have gotten any calls during that time, explain to the cops that they didn't want to respond because they were busy with...well, with whatever young couples tend to do when spending the night together in the early days of a relationship. )

Seriously, when I read people complaining a few years ago about how the GPS capabilites of smartphones might allow the authorities to track your every movement, my first thought was, "well, if you're going to do something illegal, leave your cellphone somewhere else while you're doing it."

 

[Katody Matrass]

Thank you Deborah Orr. "Weirdly, I have never come across anyone suggesting that Guede is a bit of a reprobate even for fleeing the scene of a murder he didn't commit, as he claims, let alone pointing the finger at two innocent people who served eight years in prison between them, partly on the strength of his evidence."

"The people most appallingly served by this long and terrible farrago – and it is by no means over yet – have been the grieving Kercher family."

While I might disagree slightly on how important anything Guede said was to the false conviction, overall the writer said some things that needed to be said.

Thank you for that rare voice of reason from UK media!

 

[RoseMontague]

why wouldn't their best option - by FAR - have been to leave their phones turned on but leave them inside Sollecito's apartment, while they went over to the cottage to do whatever they had planned to do to Meredith?

LOL, that's what Captain Amanda would do. Great Point.

 

[RoseMontague]

Thank you for that rare voice of reason from UK media!

I agree as well. The fact that this is coming out of a UK media source is interesting.

 

[Kestrel]

It is really significant.... and the answer is of course is no. The first time I heard of this case was back in 07' on a nightline report. Damn I wish someone had it. But they brought up the bleach receipt then and reported it as fact (I think).

The bleach receipts story came from the police less than 3 weeks after the murder. Just another example of the dishonesty of the Perugia police.

Your other post about "When in Rome" is not irrational as well. But keep in mind Merdith died between "9 and 9:30".... and I think there is an alibi for the both of them at 9:30 (computer activity I believe).

Someone closed the video file Amalie at 9:10 pm. The video file Naruto was opened at 9:26 pm. The 16 minute gap seems a bit short for AK and RS to find Rudy, jog to the cottage, murder Meredith, clean up and jog back home to watch a video.

I know you mentioned the cell phones off as being suspicious. But the cell phones were reportedly off at 8:30pm. If they were turned off at that time for the reason you may believe they turned them off, then that would mean they premeditated the crime.... and premeditation doesn't seem to go with the sex game gone wrong theory... or the theory that she was so drunk or drugged out of her mind that she got caught up in something she didn't want to.

 

[LondonJohn]

LOL, that's what Captain Amanda would do. Great Point.

She would have had to do an extraordinarily-quick hat switch from her Captain Amanda Hat (which enabled her and Sollecito to realise that their phones might betray their location) to her Hapless Amanda Hat (which led to to stupid option of turning off the phones, rather than the smart option of leaving the phones switched on inside Sollecito's apartment).

I don't buy such a rapid hat-shift

 

[LondonJohn]

Thank you for that rare voice of reason from UK!

Hey!! I'm from the UK

 

[Swimfish]

Nor is the false imprisonment bit. She was convicted of a crime and she served the sentence.

Okay, lets look at what you just agreed with. I'll assume your agreement means you agree with LK that the following statement is false (not true).

"No doubt this affair has cost her (AKs) family a lot, and four years of false imprisonment must be worth something." - "Not true"

Whether or not you believe it was justified, to assert that the cost of defending AK for the past four years did not amount to a lot of money lacks any rational basis in fact. While the exact amount the Knox family has spent in the last four years in not my business, that amount is surely not a trivial sum ($500,000 to $1,000,000 seem to be in the ballpark). For the record LK has asserted that the Knox's did not have to pay their attorneys because that is somehow covered (by the state?) in the EU. Others have shown that assertion to be false.

Yet here you come to us and reassert LKs argument yet again. LKs point that the Knox family haven't spent a lot of money in this case lacked a rational basis in fact and your agreement with that point is irrational. The jury is still out on whether you are an irrational person or just rash. But you have managed to raise suspicion.

 

[Katody Matrass]

Hey!! I'm from the UK

, sorry, I've edited my blunder.