Continuation Part 3 - Discussion of the Amanda Knox case

[bolint]

So why did she make up a story like that, I have my theory but about that in later posts.

Innocentist answer: it was coerced, the police invented it.

Guilter answer: that was her best idea on learning that Raffaele said that she had gone out that night. She did not want to name the real complice(s).

 

[Caper]

Probablity is 1/100 or 1/1000?

If the network is operating then delivery is immediate, unless the phone is inaccessible. There were no problems with the network that night so it is only the accessibility of the phone that counts.

What again is the probability of two people with no criminal background meeting up with an African drifter that they don't know and deciding to gang rape and murder a friend and roomate........... what was the probability of that again?

 

[Bob001]

... She wasnt just lying she made up a story about how things happen. ... So why did she make up a story like that, ...

Almost anybody here could answer that. She was interrogated very aggressively for almost 50 hours by as many as a dozen cops at a time speaking only in Italian, which she spoke poorly. The only translator to and from English was a policewoman who tried to persuade her to confess. When she didn't tell them what they wanted, they told her to "imagine" that she was there, and she signed a statement summarizing what she imagined, even as she wrote that it didn't seem right to her. The police made no recording or transcript of their interrogation. As a commentator on CBS' "48 Hours" observed last night, they used the same techniques on her that they would use to break Mafia gangsters. Her key mistake was that she tried too hard to cooperate with the cops, when she could have just left the country.

http://www.cbsnews.com/sections/48hours/main3410.shtml
http://www.friendsofamanda.org/statements.html
http://www.injusticeinperugia.org/TheInterrogation.html
http://www.injusticeinperugia.org/FBI7.html

 

[Caper]

I really like reading your posts but in this case I really dont understand one thing and this is the main reason i lean more towards the ones that think she is guilty.

You obviously have more experience and knowledge about this case than I have so just explain to me why was she lying and why did she change her story so drasticly.

She wasnt just lying she made up a story about how things happen. This is not just responding to a question in the wrong way because of the momentarily confusion. This is making up a story and you need to think before you do that.

Ok I know she is a young foreigner questioned about strangers and totally scared but I think that people dont make up stories in situations like that they just break down and become desperate.

So why did she make up a story like that, I have my theory but about that in later posts.

This is my first post so excuse my English, its not my native tongue.

I feel that in order to understand this case, you first must understand the nature of false confessions and how they are obtained.

I would ask you to watch this program... it WILL change the way you view this case.

http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/the-confessions/

 

[bri1]

Then it is still operating.
But he does not claim silencing it, either.



If he did not switch it off then what is with your "perfectly reasonable" story of love-night, privacy and protection against Lumumba plus father?



Probablity is 1/100 or 1/1000?

If the network is operating then delivery is immediate, unless the phone is inaccessible. There were no problems with the network that night so it is only the accessibility of the phone that counts.

Bolint, it's my position that it's hard, even when you're not having a smoke, to remember the minutae of what you did and exactly when during a time period which seems very normal to you at the time.
No matter what Raffaelle remembers about whether his phone was switched off/ on silent / on, it's my position that it doesn't matter.
If it was on, and Raffaelle remembered correctly, it has no implications for guilt, and it's perfectly and reasonably explained because blips in coverage happen all the time. Most of the time, the signal in my bedroom is fine, then one day, I receive a text 5 hrs late. However, if that day my movements happen to be under intense scrutiny, that fact becomes viewed as suspicious, even though it happens all the time...
If it was off, and Raffaelle remembered incorrectly, this also carries no implication of guilt, as it's perfectly reasonable that Raffaelle's recollection was just an error (a stoned error?), and it's also reasonable that he switched his phone off so that he could enjoy a private evening with his girlfriend.

As for your question about the probability of this dual occurrence (RS 'happening' not to receive a text until 7 hrs after it was sent, and that this 'happened' to occur on the night Meredith was murdered) - I think this ignores the problem of multiple endpoints. Whereas the odds of a particular coincidence, specified in advance, in other words a single outcome or endpoint in a specified window of time, may be very low, the odds of any coincidence or a set of coincidences which could include any number of outcomes or endpoints in a vague or not at all defined window of time, none of which are specified in advance, could be pretty high.
In other words, to know how much of a coincidence this is, we'd have to have data which told us exactly how unusual this is generally.

 

[Kaosium]

I really like reading your posts but in this case I really dont understand one thing and this is the main reason i lean more towards the ones that think she is guilty.

You obviously have more experience and knowledge about this case than I have so just explain to me why was she lying and why did she change her story so drasticly.

She wasnt just lying she made up a story about how things happen. This is not just responding to a question in the wrong way because of the momentarily confusion. This is making up a story and you need to think before you do that.

Ok I know she is a young foreigner questioned about strangers and totally scared but I think that people dont make up stories in situations like that they just break down and become desperate.

So why did she make up a story like that, I have my theory but about that in later posts.

This is my first post so excuse my English, its not my native tongue.

She didn't really make it up by herself, the cops fed it to her after they convinced her she must have had 'repressed' memories of being at the scene. They told her they had 'hard evidence' she was at the scene, that Raffaele had 'dropped' her alibi, and she'd go to jail for 30 years and never see her mother again if she didn't stop 'protecting' whoever sent that text message. With 5-10 cops at a time going at her, yelling and threatening, sometimes hitting, other times consoling her and cajoling her to 'help' them find Meredith's murderer.

Eventually she summoned a few mental images of Patrick and with the cops assuring her they 'knew' she was there she figured it might be true, seeing as her real memories were kinda fogged by hash that night anyway. They walked her through that worthless document, and then they went and did it to her again. She'd been with police 53 hours out of the 89 between the discovery of the body and the arrest, she was exhausted, highly stressed, and frightened and lonely.

It's not evidence of murder, it matches absolutely nothing, neither the crime as prosecuted or the crime as the crime scene actually looked. The fact they actually raced out and arrested Patrick on that garbage and then drove them through the streets sirens blaring like conquering heroes and told the world 'she buckled and gave an admission to facts we knew were correct' and announced 'cased closed' indicates who just wanted Patrick's name on that document: the police.

The only thing that proves is that the cops really screwed the pooch and then tried to blame her for it. There's something nasty going on in Perugia with the police.

 

[Katody Matrass]

Excellent article, however it reminds me that it might have been a better idea to let Amanda be seen more after her return, I'm reading things about her hiding out for six months. I think the better option would have been to let her be seen, I think in the end she will be the best ambassador for her innocence.

In six months a line might be set and her 'guilt' made a political position, I read Bill O'Reilly and Nancy Grace have joined in, that shouldn't be allowed to happen. I suspect it would have been better to nip it in the bud, let people see her so they know what she's actually like.

I don't think there is a real need or pressure to counter anything right now. If Amanda and her family wants privacy and peace, that's great. Of course there will be a fringe of maniacs and haters, just like those moon hoaxers who pester lunar astronauts and get an occasional response , but such people beyond help are a very small minority.

Shows like yesterdays 48 Hours are going to work very well informing the more moderate general public for now.

 

[bolint]

it's my position that it's hard, even when you're not having a smoke, to remember the minutae of what you did and exactly when during a time period which seems very normal to you at the time.

Minutae?

They don't remember anything.
Look:
At around 8:40PM Amanda is talking with Popovic in person, Raffaele with his father on the phone. There is nothing strange, they are both normal.
And then suddenly complete blackout for both of them till about 9AM next morning.

As for your question about the probability of this dual occurrence (RS 'happening' not to receive a text until 7 hrs after it was sent, and that this 'happened' to occur on the night Meredith was murdered)

I was referring to the probability of the late delivery of the SMS in itself, regardless of the murder.

 

[Kaosium]

They shlould not have been turned off before the murder and I don't think in premeditation, either.

I don't see even proven that her phone was switched off at all.
There is no other proof, only her claim.
But probably it was indeed switched off.

As for Raffaele, I think it was switched off later, after the murder.
Someone called him or her and that caused him (and her) to turn it off.

For example his father called him, he did not answer it but turned it off thus the SMS that followed could not be delivered.

What does it have to do with being evidence of the murder though? That's what I don't get. The sequences of events she described makes sense, she got the message from Patrick, knew she had the night off, turned off the phone and jumped Raffaele. As has been noted before, if they knew the phones could track them, the best bet is to leave them at Raffaele's. She also like to save her battery, perhaps she often turned off her phone when she knew she wouldn't be needing it in the near future for that purpose. Save the planet!

There's lots of things that happened right around the same time that don't have anything to do with the murder, do you think the broken down car was involved? That's a helluva lot bigger coincidence.

 

[Chris_Halkides]

blackout?

Minutae?

They don't remember anything.
Look:
At around 8:40PM Amanda is talking with Popovic in person, Raffaele with his father on the phone. There is nothing strange, they are both normal.
And then suddenly complete blackout for both of them till about 9AM next morning.

bolint,

What do you mean complete blackout? They both said that they were at his flat.

 

[bolint]

What does it have to do with being evidence of the murder though? That's what I don't get. The sequences of events she described makes sense, she got the message from Patrick, knew she had the night off, turned off the phone and jumped Raffaele.

And yet, he doesn't remember.
He is madly in love, but does not remember the first full undisturbed night.
Give me a break.

 

[bolint]

What do you mean complete blackout? They both said that they were at his flat.

That is the complete blackout.
They don't know what they were doing in his flat.

And even the simple claims that they were at his flat came with considerable birth pains.

 

[Kestrel]

The only thing that proves is that the cops really screwed the pooch and then tried to blame her for it. There's something nasty going on in Perugia with the police.

Steve Moore's post on his blog yesterday shows it is still going on:

About half an hour after the initially popular verdict, a “spontaneous” anti-Knox demonstration began outside the court. In a striking bit of serendipity, the “spontaneous demonstrators” just happened to have megaphone with them that night, and all knew what they would chant. Though in jeans and polo shirts, the demonstrators (all men between their middle-20’s and late 40’s) bore startling, almost eerie individual resemblances to the dozens of policemen who had originally signed the warrants against Amanda and Raffaele, and who had been in court that night in a “show of solidarity.”
...
After the ‘impromptu’ demonstration, the men began individual fist-fights with Italian Amanda supporters, (I counted at least five such fights) and generally shamed the town of Perugia at a moment when the city deserved to be basking in the glory of the world spotlight.

 

[Whisky1981]

Ok I read everything and I understand that situations like this can lead to wrong confessions. Once I was brought to the police for something that was stolen from the workplace where I just got a job. Obviously I was a suspect being the new guy.

The local police interogated me and I have to say that they were pretty harsh with me although they didnt beat me or used any physical violence against me.

But not for a second I would tell them something that wasnt real or tried to imagine something that could have happenen. I was around 22 years old at the time.

So I am not really convinced that what she said was aresult of total confusion. Maybe some of the things were true and that was the only moment that she really broke down.

Another thing about the bra clasp. How could itgot contaminated if the crime scene was seald. Nor Raffaele nor Amanda returned to that house after November the 2nd. So they probably didnt touch that bra clasp after the time of the investigations. Why did the bra clasp had Raffaele DNA on it?

Maybe it was just a drug deal went wrong?

I dont know I usually dont care about cases that happen in Italy because I cant watch their television, everything is just so sensational that it makes me sick watching them. I know how unpolite and racist the Italian police and people can be. I am from a country neigbouring Italy and our nation was always considered a lower race country by them at least by some people that live near the border. So I know this aspect of the Italians.

 

[katy_did]

Well, maybe she'll be kinda forgotten about and no one will be saying she tried to immediately 'cash in.' Then we get the movie! Who else plans on being there to nitpick the details to death with me?

Incidentally, I didn't see the press conference, does anyone have a link?

LOL, no they'll be saying she's not doing interviews because the little witch has something to hide instead. Totally there to nitpick the movie details.

 

[bolint]

But not for a second I would tell them something that wasnt real or tried to imagine something that could have happenen. I was around 22 years old at the time.

Expect a lot of "53 hours, 30 policemen, beating, no lawyer, illegal, coerced, etc."

Maybe it was just a drug deal went wrong?

And Rudy's DNA in the victims body? It was something more.

 

[Kaosium]

And yet, he doesn't remember.
He is madly in love, but does not remember the first full undisturbed night.
Give me a break.

He just didn't remember which night was which, that's hardly unusual. He wasn't expecting anyone to be asking him questions, why would he want to murder Meredith? The cops didn't even seem to think him part of the murder at first either, otherwise they might have asked him about it when they had him in one room, Amanda in another with a dozen cops to spare. Ever heard of that trick? Properly played you can put the prisoner in a dilemma.

So why didn't they actually ask Raffaele about the murder when they had the perfect chance? Why does your scenario rely upon them letting Raffaele just sit there while going after Amanda about someone else? Why not go after Raffaele while he's still stoned and can be bamboozled? Why didn't it occur to them to try to confirm the information about Patrick with Raffaele? This is obvious yet they forget?

There's huge indications of guilt here, you're really handicapping yourself by just focusing on Raffaele and Amanda. You've got to go with things like the dump in the toilet and whether they turned off their phones, but there's actually really suspicious indications emanating from elsewhere.

 

[Matthew Best]

I am at a loss to understand why anybody is so interested in the minutiae of what two people did one evening several years ago, when it's already been proved in court that what they didn't do was murder someone. Now that's out of the way, what does it matter?

 

[Grinder]

The phone turned off conversation is another diversion. There is little, if any, evidence that it in fact occurred and no argument that makes it evidence that they committed murder.

My SO's kids call me all the time to get the SO to answer the phone or return a text. She turns off the phone to avoid them. Some phones work differently when charging and don't seem to ring - maybe a feature for charging at night.

They would have left their phones on and at home if they were planning a murder.

Since Raffaele never claimed to have turned his phone off perhaps some proof needs to be given that it was. I sometimes get delayed text messages.

 

[bolint]

He just didn't remember which night was which, that's hardly unusual.

On Nov 2 he did not remember the previous night?
That would be very unusual.
But it was not what happened.
Interestingly at that time he said that Amanda was with him in his flat.

He wasn't expecting anyone to be asking him questions, why would he want to murder Meredith? The cops didn't even seem to think him part of the murder at first either, otherwise they might have asked him about it when they had him in one room, Amanda in another with a dozen cops to spare. Ever heard of that trick? Properly played you can put the prisoner in a dilemma.

Yes, if he has something to confess.

So why didn't they actually ask Raffaele about the murder when they had the perfect chance? Why does your scenario rely upon them letting Raffaele just sit there while going after Amanda about someone else?

Basically because without Amanda there is no theory. It is extremely unlikely that Raffaele was there and Amanda was not.
And they knew that Amanda had exchanged SMS with someone else just before the murder. First they wanted to know about it.
It is taken for granted here that at the time of the confession they knew that the phone owner was Lumumba. I have not seen proof of it so far.

Why not go after Raffaele while he's still stoned and can be bamboozled?

It is an unsupported claim of yours that he was stoned at the interrogation.

Why didn't it occur to them to try to confirm the information about Patrick with Raffaele? This is obvious yet they forget?

See above.

There's huge indications of guilt here, you're really handicapping yourself by just focusing on Raffaele and Amanda. You've got to go with things like the dump in the toilet and whether they turned off their phones, but there's actually really suspicious indications emanating from elsewhere.

I'm not focusing only on them. I don't even think that Raffaele was there at the time of the murder. I even believe him that the first time he knew about Rudy was after the murder. I could even accept another complice, call him X, unkown so far, who was there.
What I don't believe is that Amanda was not there.