Continuation Part 3 - Discussion of the Amanda Knox case

[Machiavelli]

None of that is evidence against Amanda. No evidence was found in Filomena's room that could link her to the real break-in by Rudy Guede. There was never any evidence of a clean-up in the bathroom imo and even if there was that doesn't necessarily implicate Amanda (Remember, this was all before the luminol prints surfaced). So what evidence could the cops be talking about here? What evidence placed her at the crime scene?

We have different opinions on this. We have different assessments. I think there is obvious evidence of cleanup and staging. This not makes me a liar.
So you understand at least that a generic statement like a conclusion of "hard evidence" is an assessment. To spot a lie you must focus some fact.

 

[Machiavelli]

Here is the note in a nutshell:

She recounts what she did that night - no mention of Patrick or the murder; then she says this seems more real than the statements she signed for the police; and lastly, implies that the police's assumption that Patrick is guilty could be true, but gives no reason that he could be.

Oh, no. She says she has memories and dosen't know which memories are real.
And she does not mention a "police assumption", she addresses her own statements.
She talks about her memories. Her statements.

 

[Machiavelli]

I believe she trusted the cops to tell the truth at that time and was confused, scared, and frightened. She was hit on the head, tag teamed by numerous cops, in a foreign country, and told she was going to jail if she did not make an admission the cops were pushing for.

You are not answering.

Yes or no.



She had memories, or she had not, memories of Patrick killing Meredith.


She "trusted the cops" about where she was few nights before. You are seriously saying this? You think her basic cognitive functions failed?

 

[Machiavelli]

Nope. I can see that you think it is OK that the cops tell somebody things will go harder for them with a lawyer. This is just common sense stuff. Not only was it a lie, in this case I believe it is also one that turned out to be false information, and very bad legal advice, in addition of being an example of police misconduct.

I don't think. There is a law.
You suggest to replace law with common sense?

 

[Malkmus]

Oh, no. She says she has memories and dosen't know which memories are real.
And she does not mention a "police assumption", she addresses her own statements.
She talks about her memories. Her statements.

Those statements are unusable though. And the note on its own is not an accusation. In fact there is no way to determine from the note whether she understood that the statements she signed accused Patrick directly of murdering Meredith. Since the statements were written by someone else in Italian and fed to her via a biased translator, for all she knew the statement said "Patrick went to the cottage and had ice cream".

 

[Malkmus]

You are not answering.

Yes or no.



She had memories, or she had not, memories of Patrick killing Meredith.


She "trusted the cops" about where she was few nights before. You are seriously saying this? You think her basic cognitive functions failed?

Funny you accusing others of not answering when you have refused a simple request such as citing what part of the note is an accusation of Patrick murdering Meredith.

 

[Kevin_Lowe]

We have different opinions on this. We have different assessments. I think there is obvious evidence of cleanup and staging.

I find this a curious belief, seeing as you cannot show us this obvious evidence to show a cleanup or staging.

I'm not saying you don't believe there was a cleanup or staging - people can and do believe things without evidence all the time. That makes them idiots but not liars. However I am saying that you are knowingly lying about having obvious evidence of cleanup and staging.

I say this because no such evidence exists. You might equally well claim to have obvious evidence of a unicorn.

This not makes me a liar.

I think it does, if you don't have the obvious evidence you claim to have, since it seems very unlikely that you don't know you do not have such evidence.

So you understand at least that a generic statement like a conclusion of "hard evidence" is an assessment.

No, actually. Words have meanings. You can't just make things up and then call them "hard evidence", because that's not what "hard evidence" means.

To spot a lie you must focus some fact.

Let's focus on the fact you claimed to have obvious evidence of a break-in and staging, and you have none.

 

[Kaosium]

Actually I pay little attention at what the police say.
I wonder what people see in this English translation "they told things we knew were true". You seem to believe this statment is an evidence of something.
But it is nothing, just an elusive formula to the press. I dont see anything in it.

It means they corroborated her statements with the other information they had, and that she 'buckled.' That's how you run an interrogation--anywhere. Your problem is your police see something suspicious, they get to 'hypothesizing' and then they create their 'evidence' through tactics like these.

That statement by Di Felice shows us the statements reveal what the police knew at the time about Amanda and Patrick being complicit together in the murder, and other factors such as Patrick's bar being closed. None of it was true, and it wasn't Amanda's fault, because it wasn't her 'lie.'

A good example is whether Patrick's bar was closed, in the first statement it was, however as we all know, it wasn't. Amanda in her note words it correctly, suggesting she told them it rightly, however they weren't listening, and she missed the nuance in the statement when she signed it, or they told her it didn't matter. Notably because if Patrick was the murderer, he couldn't have been at his bar for a certain period of time and if he was the only one there it would have had to be closed.

So then they went out and created the evidence. Who knows how it happened for sure, but somehow despite Patrick's bar being open they had a 'witness' to it being closed:

The last confirmation of the closure of the locale before said time is found in the declarations of a regular customer, one Vulcano Gerado Pasquale, the which interviewed at sommarie informazioni [page 12] on the date 7 November 2007, referred to the fact that, on the night of the 1st November, he noticed, around 19.00, that the locale was closed, as well having noticed said circumstance much later on his return from the pizzeria.

However:

Police questioned a Swiss professor today who, together with other witnesses, said that he could back up Lumumba's claim that he was at his bar in Perugia on the evening of the murder. The professor, who has not been named, told police that he was at Lumumba's bar between 8 p.m. and 10 p.m.

Police questioned him for seven hours, but said that they had found his confirmation of Lumumba's alibi unconvincing. He was able to confirm that he had been at Lumumba's bar on the evening of the murder, but could not swear the bar owner had been present throughout. Giuseppe Sereni, Lumunba's lawyer, said he would produce 20 other witnesses to back up his client's alibi.

It was their story so they believed it, they wouldn't believe anyone who said anything different, not Amanda in her note, not Patrick, not any of Patrick's witnesses, nobody could talk them out of it until Rudy Guede was caught. Then they blamed her for their mistake, that's reprehensible and they deserve to be punished for it.

 

[Malkmus]

Does anyone know f the police checked Patrick's phone to see if the text "don't bother coming in. It's not busy" was on it?

 

[Ammonitida]

We have different opinions on this. We have different assessments. I think there is obvious evidence of cleanup and staging. This not makes me a liar.
So you understand at least that a generic statement like a conclusion of "hard evidence" is an assessment. To spot a lie you must focus some fact.

The break-in, even if it was staged, is not evidence against Amanda by itself. No forensic evidence at the time linked her to it. Filomena could have staged it after "killing Meredith" for example. So that's not even weak evidence against Amanda. It's not evidence at all. The alleged bathroom clean-up, even if true, is also not evidence against Amanda. Someone else could have cleaned it up. Indeed, the bloody partial footprint was too big for a woman of her size to make so why suspect her? You see, nothing you mention could be linked to Amanda at the time. The blood on the faucet was not identified as hers until later if I'm not mistaken. The luminol prints didn't surface until much later. Ditto for the so-called "double-DNA" knife. All these came after the interrogation.

So I'm still left wondering what hard evidence the cops were referring to.

 

[Steft50]

I don't think[/I]. There is a law.
You suggest to replace law with common sense?

BBM
And there is the problem, you don't think beyond what you say is your law.

We have different opinions on this. We have different assessments. I think there is obvious evidence of cleanup and staging. This not makes me a liar.
So you understand at least that a generic statement like a conclusion of "hard evidence" is an assessment. To spot a lie you must focus some fact.

BBM
And yet Judge Hellman said quiet clearly there was no crime of a "staged" break in. The crime did not happen.

Also, could you list your evidence of a clean up and please explain how someone does a selective clean up of a crime scene. A clean up that removes all evidence of the presence of two people in the bedroom and bathroom while keeping the evidence against Rudy intact, as well as just enough evidence to show that Amanda did live in the apartment too. I've been fascinated by this theory but no one has yet been able to explain selective clean up of a bloody crime scene to me.

To spot a lie you must KNOW what the facts are. Until forensics started to come back the only fact the police and prosecutors had was that Ms Kercher was horribly murdered. To bad they decided what they wanted the facts to be and twisted the evidence in an attempt to match what they wanted. Judge Hellman saw thru that and invalidated all of it except Amandas statements against Patrick.

 

[LashL]

You know, this could all be cleared up easy-peasy if the police and prosecution would simply produce recordings of the interrogations.

The reality is that they either deliberately chose not to record the late night 12-cop tag-team interrogations of individuals who were clearly suspects, or they suppressed the recordings of same. There really are no other realistic options.

 

[Kaosium]

The break-in, even if it was staged, is not evidence against Amanda by itself. No forensic evidence at the time linked her to it. Filomena could have staged it after "killing Meredith" for example. So that's not even weak evidence against Amanda. It's not evidence at all. The alleged bathroom clean-up, even if true, is also not evidence against Amanda. Someone else could have cleaned it up. Indeed, the bloody partial footprint was too big for a woman of her size to make so why suspect her? You see, nothing you mention could be linked to Amanda at the time. The blood on the faucet was not identified as hers until later if I'm not mistaken. The luminol prints didn't surface until much later. Ditto for the so-called "double-DNA" knife. All these came after the interrogation.

So I'm still left wondering what hard evidence the cops were referring to.

My suspicion is it was the CCTV video. I seriously have trouble believing there was a camera pointed at the road outside the cottage and they didn't jump all over that, it seems obvious to me, it's what they'd do immediately in a purse-snatching for crissakes. They didn't release it until five days after the arrest and it didn't make it into the Matteini Report on the Eighth, but my guess is that's because it's so fuzzy, it's not really evidence at all, but they'd use it to put the pressure on her; first in the interrogation and later to the press to try to get her to break down and give a real confession.

I do love the description 'clear cut' for this video!

 

[JREF2010]

You know, this could all be cleared up easy-peasy if the police and prosecution would simply produce recordings of the interrogations.

The reality is that they either deliberately chose not to record the late night 12-cop tag-team interrogations of individuals who were clearly suspects, or they suppressed the recordings of same. There really are no other realistic options.

I think we'll hear more and more of this interrogation, which is a good thing.

It was noticed during the Massei trial how Raffaele and Amanda both stood and spoke out against the interrogation, specifically.

Another interrogation note, I might be wrong, was during Amandas testimony, translated by Thoughtful, if I recall correctly Amanda made a comment the police told her it was "being recorded anyway".

This interrogation Nov 5/6 seems to be the worst part of the ordeal, not that the prison was easy, but from how I read it, the interrogation ruined their faith in the police and it was like a major betrayal.

All these people who work in the biz seem to know all about it, the Douglas interview, Steve Moore, and many others say its really easy to make someone crumble. its really hard to imagine how this is allowed without filming.

Edgardo Giobbi.....did he take the pictures down yet, off his wall of shame?
I wish some reporter would follow up this one.

 

[Chris_Halkides]

Eric Volz on making the transition to a free person

Link here. Eric Volz was wrongfully imprisoned in Nicaragua for a year.

 

[theRealBob]

Thanks, that was a great post, and interview... Rudy as an opportunistic criminal/murderer/rapist

Thank you.

You will receive a wildcard entry into the JREF 'longest quote in history' Hall Of Fame

 

[JREF2010]

FROM VANITY FAIR

THE FOURTH MAN
Perugia, November 2nd, 2007.
At 7.00 AM a young blond man, with a white cap and a Napapijri jacket, washes his blood-stained hands in the fountain in Piazza Grimana, not far from the cottage of Meredith Kercher, yelling "I've killed her." In a few hours (after 1.00 PM) the city will be shocked by the discovery of the murder. In the meanwhile, the shopkeepers call 118.

This is not a new fact. We told you about this episode in Vanity Fair no 28, 2008. That young man, C P, was never part of the investigation. "Yet he was dressed like the small blond fellow described by Rudy Guede in the first interrogation, when he admitted to being present at the crime scene. In the beginning Guede did not mention the names of Raffaele and Amanda," lawyer Luca Maori, defence for Sollecito says today, and he adds,"The Perugian prosecutors did not want to follow alternative lines of enquiry and they did not believe Mario Alessi."

http://www.komonews.com/news/local/19361399.html

http://www.vanityfair.it/news/itali...sa-giovinazzo-usciti-carcere-sentenza-assolti


anyone else seen this?

 

[Mary_H]

Funny you accusing others of not answering when you have refused a simple request such as citing what part of the note is an accusation of Patrick murdering Meredith.

Or any of Amanda's "lies."

He is really good at not answering questions. I addressed four posts and at least as many questions to him in the last 24 hours; never heard back on a single one.

 

[Mary_H]

You are not answering.

Yes or no.

She had memories, or she had not, memories of Patrick killing Meredith.

She "trusted the cops" about where she was few nights before. You are seriously saying this? You think her basic cognitive functions failed?

With little to no understanding of human psychology, how exactly was it you were allowed to write an entry on narcissism in the Italian Wikipedia?

 

[moodstream]

@ Machiavelli.

Wow, you are the last soldier standing. What happened to the pro guilt crowd? Anyway, I will make a prediction. You won't agree of course. My prediction is that Amanda Knox and the Kerchers will become friendly. Sounds outlandish now, but over the next 12 months, the Kerchers will come to understand that Knox could not have killed their daughter/sister, and in fact, will apologize for being so accusative towards her.

Would that change your point of view? Will you finally admit defeat?