Continuation Part 3 - Discussion of the Amanda Knox case

Status
Not open for further replies.
-

on second thought,

wait until the whole case is done and then sell exclusives to the first cartwheel.millions

and just give the money to the "Univ for Foreigners" in Perugia and set up an annual grant or scholarship kind of trust in Meredith's name.
Excellant idea AmyStrange!

I know this English dude who surfs, and is a photog.
Heck, he just did a show here in L.A.and he has exhibits in Europe too. Dude knows his stuff.
Chattin' about life one day, post-surf session, he told me to keep an eye out for celebrities who might be out enjoyin' the beach, for 1 of his bro's, a paparzzi, had sold a buncha shots to the English tabloids for 200.

200 thousand!
Nice chunka change, no?
That would help get a memorial scholarship started in Meredith Kercher's name...
 
Last edited:
Hi Bob001,
Speakin' of crap,
I recall reading a few recent questions here about the toilet once again.
I thought that it was you that did post a PooReport link or something like that, correct? It showed the toilets in Italy, and helped explain to me how they worked. Any chance you still have it without me diggin' it up?
Thanks,
RW

Sure.
http://www.poopreport.com/Travel/Content/Italy/italy.html
I think the writer's point is that in parts of Italy, flushing requires brushing.
 
Wendy Murphy is a fanatic, and truly, an idiot. She is willfully ignorant, and her victims' advocacy creates more victims than it saves.

I have taken to reading some of the guilter sites since the appeal verdict. It's just my way of silently gloating. I noticed the following post on TJMK:

Added Wednesday afternoon. Wendy Murphy’s article was the subject of a concerted attacked with the usual faux facts on many websites. She came back fighting with this long comment.

Please refrain from posting false information. There is ABUNDANT evidence against Knox and Sollecito.

Guede’s involvement in the murder cannot be questioned. Nor is it in doubt that there were multiple offenders. Guede’s race is irrelevant. That Amanda Knox falsely accused an innocent black man is highly relevant and speaks to her consciounsness of guilt, and her character, as much as her racism. One news report revealed that she once photographed herself in a white supremecist context (claiming it was a joke).

She claimed to make the initial false accusation against an innocent black man (Patrick Lumumba) under stress from police questioning, but when given a chance to clarify her accusation at a later date, she reaffirmed her false claim against him. The man sat in prison for two weeks because of Amanda’s false accusation. She was convicted of lying about police treating her unfairly. One of her lawyers at the first trial told the New York Times her trial was fair.

ONLY THE BRA CLASP WAS ALLEGEDLY ‘CONTAMINATED’ - NOT THE KNIFE

The defense argued that the DNA on a metal bra clasp, which had been severed from the victim’s bra, could have been contaminated when it was moved on the floor, six weeks after the murder, or in the forensic laboratory in Rome. The judge at the trial of Rudy Guede acknowledged that the DNA sample on the clasp was considered small, but described the claim of contamination at the laboratory as making ‘no sense’, since there was no material from which such contamination could have come, and so ‘the risk would have been the LOSS of traces found there, not the risk of somehow discovering new traces’.

FROM CNN

The defense has said the knife found at Sollecito’s apartment doesn’t match Kercher’s wounds or an imprint of a knife left on a bedsheet at Kercher’s apartment. They have also said the DNA sample is too small to be conclusive. They also raised speculation that the DNA found on the bra clasp could have been contaminated.

THE DNA EVIDENCE WAS ONLY A SMALL PIECE OF THE MOUNTAIN OF EVIDENCE AGAINST AMANDA KNOX

‘Why do you need to review the forensic evidence when this conviction is based on much more than the knife and the bra clasp?’ Prosecutor Manuela Comodi argued before the court began deliberating.
She then reminded the court that Knox and Sollecito don’t have an alibi for the night of the killing, adding that there was ‘ample’ evidence of a staged break-in.

FROM ITALIAINFORMAZIONI.COM
..
Kercher’s body was found with her throat cut on November 2, 2007, in the house she shared with Knox in the central Italian city. A knife with a 6-inch blade was later found at Sollecito’s house, bearing traces of Kercher’s DNA on the blade and Knox’s on the handle. The defence teams of both Knox and Sollecito, who pleaded innocent at the weekend, have cast doubt on the DNA findings, saying the samples were too small to prove their provenance. THEY DID NOT CLAIM THE SAMPLES ON THE KNIVES WERE CONTAMINATED. THE DEFENSE ONLY CLAIMED THAT KERCHER’S DNA ON THE BLADE WAS TOO SMALL TO BE A MATCH - BUT EVEN IF YOU BELIEVE THAT - IT IS SIGNIFICANT THAT KERCHER OULD NOT BE RULED OUT!

Guede says he was in the bathroom of the house when he heard Knox and Kercher argue about money [Meredith had several hundred dollars in her room - that went missing - which was likely the motive that sparked the fight] before Kercher screamed and he found her in a pool of blood

FROM THE DAILY BEAST

Forensic scientist Patrizia Stefanoni, who testified as a prosecution witness last spring, wrote too low in English on initial results, assumed to mean that the samples of Kerchers DNA on the alleged murder weapon were only partial strands that needed amplification. [THERE WAS NO DISPUTE THAT AMANDA KNOX’S DNA ON THE HANDLE WAS A LARGE ENOUGH SAMPLE SIZE TO BE MATCHED TO AMANDA KNOX. NOR WAS THERE A DISPUTE THAT THE BLADE HAD BEEN SCRUBBED CLEAN WITH BLEACH AND AN ABRASIVE SUBSTANCE]. Writing too low suggests the expert was copying a reading directly from the machine, while she was continuing to test the sample. The implication, according to the defense, is that Stefanoni then had to amplify the tiny sample found on the blade beyond the protocol to find a match to Kerchers DNA. AMPLIFICATION IS NOT FORENSICALLY INAPPROPRIATE AND IS DONE ALL THE TIME.

FROM ARTICLESBASE.COM

Knox and Sollecito were interviewed several times by the police on the day the murder was discovered and the following two days. On 5 November 2007, Knox voluntarily accompanied Sollecito to the police station where he gave a statement, in the course of which he said that he DID NOT KNOW FOR SURE that Knox was with him on the night of the murder. The police then decided to question Knox and began the interview at 23.00 that evening. Knox was interviewed twice during the night of 56 November, firstly by the judicial police and then, later, in the presence of a prosecutor. During these interviews, Knox made statements implicating Patrick Lumumba, the owner of a bar-restaurant named Le Chic, at which she occasionally worked. She said that she had accompanied Lumumba to Kercher’s house and had been in the kitchen and heard screams while Lumumba committed the murder.

Knox was formally arrested later on the morning of 6 November. Some time afterwards she made a written note to the police, explaining that she was confused when she made the earlier statements [IMPLICATING HERSELF], saying ‘I’m very doubtful of the verity of my statements because they were made under the pressures of stress, shock and extreme exhaustion’. However, she still seemed to incriminate Lumumba, saying: ‘I stand by my statements that I made last night about events that could have taken place in my home with Patrick [Lumumba], but I want to make very clear that these events seem more unreal to me that what I said before, that I stayed at Raffaele’s house.’ She went on to say ‘I see Patrick as the murderer, but the way the truth feels in my mind, there is no way for me to have known because I don’t remember FOR SURE if I was at my house that night.’

Lumumba was arrested on 6 November 2007 as a result of Knox’s statements. He was detained for two weeks until the arrest of Guede. Initially doubts about his alibi were reported in the press, but ultimately he was completely exonerated.

Knox’s DNA was found on two of the knives kept in Sollecito’s kitchen drawer for cooking, and a small amount of Kercher’s DNA was found on one of the two. At trial, the defence countered that Knox’s DNA would normally be on the knife because she used knives for cooking at Sollecito’s apartment. The defence also challenged the Kercher DNA sample as being too small to be reliable. Knox and Sollecito’s defence teams also asserted that this knife was not the lethal weapon because it did not match two of the three wounds and tested negative for blood. However, a forensic evidence expert for the prosecution testified that it was compatible with one of the wounds on Kercher’s neck, but that two other wounds might have been inflicted by a different weapon;

Mixed samples of Knox’s DNA and Kercher’s blood were found in the apartment, including in the bathroom sink and in Filomena Romanelli’s room. The defence argued that Knox’s DNA should be expected to be present there in the ordinary course of her use of the apartment and bathroom as a resident of the cottage - BUT KNOX HERSELF MADE STATEMENTS TO POLICE CONCEDING THERE WAS NO REASON FOR HER DNA TO BE MIXED WITH THE VICTIM’S BLOOD IN SO MANY LOCATIONS IN THE APARTMENT. KNOX HAD LIVED THERE FOR ONLY A FEW SHORT WEEKS BEFORE THE MURDER.

*******.

AN IMPORTANT PIECE FROM THE SEATTLE TIMES ABOUT PRO-KNOX POLITICAL INFLUENCE/POSSIBLE CORRUPTION

http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/html/localnews/2016448492_knox09m.html

Posted by Peter Quennell on 10/12/11 at 09:44 AM

I cannot find where this note has been posted, except at TJMK.

Based on the posts here at JREF, W. Murphy seems like sort of a litmus test for which side is wrong in a debate.
 
That dog won't hunt for me either and I find the scientific lit I was addressed by them to be as scarce as hen's teeth. Could be one of them there Lost in Translation things. I used to find Machiavelli's Anglish to be as easy as sliding off a greasy log backward and now it reads like Shakespeare on WKRP. I do wish on this one he would either fish or cut bait. Reckon I'll sit for a spell.

What do you expect from the scientific literature? I guess I don't quite understand why all the papers that have been posted, dozens so far, have been unsatisfactory. What is the basis for your contention that Amanda is lying in that note? I maintain at this point she's been a more reliable source of the truth at this point than the police, and while her note may tell an unusual story, studying it and putting it into context leads to the conclusion she's telling the truth as best she can.

Granted it is possible for both the police and Amanda to be lying, but I guess I think that if her account in the note not only cannot be falsified, it actually bears resemblance to a known phenomena then in fact she's likely to be relating her confused memories and understanding of that night and the interrogation as best she can. She even gets corroboration for some of it from an unlikely source, the interrogator for the police!

It looks to me like she wrote that note to clarify what she was trying to get across in the interrogation, which is why when passed through the translator and then into the Statements it comes across so 'vague and confused.' She's was known for trying to work her thoughts out through writing from before she went to Perugia. Then she has her little Spiderman notebook in jail for her diary, again writing things out like the HIV table to figure out where she might have gotten it, just as she does in that note.

The just plain lying scenario might seem more plausible on the surface, but it mangles the known behavior of Amanda, it's just more 'Hapless Amanda/Captain Amanda' because she has to do this in a way that mirrors the conditions necessary for and symptoms of false memories, the basis of an internalized false confession and the whole 'recovered memory' fiasco which caused so much anguish. You can talk people into believing they committed a crime that they did not when they might fry for it, you can convince them they suffered sexual abuse when they did not, and you can also convince them they saw something they did not. There seems to be common themes amongst them as well, not all of them in every circumstance, but that's hardly necessary, just a few elements ought to do the trick. Yet if she can do all that, why succumb to it, and even if she did why not make it the dictionary definition?

I suspect they didn't finish the job on Amanda, she escaped their clutches in time and that note is a contemporaneous account of her mental state at that time. They put the heat on her but they didn't finish baking her, she was still cookie dough, not yet hardened and flattened into cookies, and that's what we see in that note. Her note is evidence, what is the evidence for the supposition that she's lying in it? The post you've said you agreed with exists only in a vacuum to me, unconnected to the rest of the case. ( :p ) I can't make sense of the interrogation if all that is mere mendacity, because it continues for several days after, not unlike the stronger internalized false confession that all the circumstances have been laid for and the symptoms exist.

Ost et al Page 4 said:
The analogy between certain adults accounts of childhood sexual abuse and the processes identified as being implicated in false confessions does have face validity and indeed comparisons have already been drawn between them (e.g. Brown, 1995; Gudjonsson, 1997a; Kassin, 1997; Kopelman, 1999; Kluft, 1999; Ofshe & Watters, 1994). Kassin (1997, p. 301), for example, has drawn parallels between the “false memory syndrome patient” and a suspect who falsely confesses: “in both sets of cases, an authority figure claims to have privileged insight into an experience in the individual’s past.” Kassin goes on to state that both groups of individuals are in a state of heightened vulnerability regarding their memories, that the interaction takes place in a context devoid of external reality, and that in both cases the ‘expert’ convinces the individual to accept a negative and painful self-insight.

Ost et al Page 5 said:
Ofshe (1989) provides a more detailed framework for understanding the processes that can occur in interrogations, raising the likelihood of a false confession being made. Based on a case study of a suspected coerced-internalised false confessor, Ofshe concluded that false confessors are persuaded to accept two things. The first is that they could have committed the crime, despite their lack of memory for having done so. Ofshe argued that false yet seemingly ‘incontrovertible’ scientific evidence is sometimes invoked to corroborate this ‘fact’ (e.g. inappropriately administered polygraph tests or nonexistent forensic evidence), at least in the USA where police use of such trickery is not ‘illegal’, as it is in England and Wales. The second is then to convince the individual that there is a valid and plausible reason why she/he does not remember having committed the crime. Thus the subject of Ofshe’s (1989) study had been told by the police that the reason he could not remember having committed a murder is that he was “blocking out his memory of the crime ... just like his having denied being an alcoholic for
years” (pp. 9-10).

Here's another one suggesting memory distortions in coerced false confessions and the conditions necessary:

Henkel and Kaufmann Page 577 said:
Regardless of their guilt, suspects are often told that evidence exists that ties them to crimes and that witnesses or accomplices have implicated them. The strength of existing evidence is exaggerated, and non-existent evidence is implied to exist. This misinformation can come to be believed by innocent suspects because it seems incontrovertible, and they may then create memories that support these false beliefs.

There's numerous ways to suggest false memories evident in what we know of the interrogation:

Henkel and Kaufman Page 579 said:
Previous sections have discussed how both misinformation and imagery processes can contribute to a suspect’s false beliefs and confessions, and these effects are in fact intensified by repetition. Repeated imagination of events and actions can substantially increase people’s willingness to believe that they actually occurred (e.g., Goff & Roediger, 1998; Hyman & Billings, 1998; Porter, Yuille, & Lehman, 1999; Thomas & Loftus, 2002). Furthermore, repeated exposure to misinformation increases false memory rates (Zaragoza & Mitchell, 1996), especially when the repeated exposure involves imaginal processes that increase the vividness, detail, and fluency of the information (Mitchell & Zaragoza, 1996).

Repeatedly probing with increasingly suggestive questions can also lead to memory distortions (Cassell, Roebers, & Bjorklund, 1996), a practice likely engaged in by interrogators. Although repeated questioning and attempts to remember information can enhance accurate recall, they can also lead to intrusions and other memory errors (Roediger, McDermott, & Goff, 1997). For example, repeated attempts to recall details of a crime have been found to be associated with enhanced recall for correct information but also with increases in memory intrusions and distortions (Bornstein, Liebel, & Scarberry, 1998; Eugenio, Buckout, Kostes, & Ellison, 1982). Repeatedly trying to remember various objects leads to increased recall but also increased source errors in claiming imagined items had been perceived, particularly when people try to remember as much as they can without carefully considering the source of the remembered information (Henkel, 2004).

On this issue the Hellmann Report will return a guilty verdict, which has to suggest that this note is a lie somehow, either the coercive elements did not exist, the repeated qualifiers are 'lies' and only the 'stand by' part is germane, or....I don't know. I'm curious how it might come out, thus interested in the discussion. I wrote a long response to the scenario you've repeatedly posted the other day but chose to demur instead for other reasons. I wonder if we are really all that far apart, as I too have come to suspect she never actually believed it wholeheartedly, but merely that it was possible and with the police turning the screws she simply acceded to their demands eventually, however what is the matter with this being the main reason she succumbed? They did in fact cause her to summon false images like she said that were just real enough for her to doubt her own memory and thus capitulate?

What's the evidence and argument behind any alternative story to hers? I guess that's what it comes down to. At this stage how can the default position be that she's lying, shouldn't that at least require something more than incredulity? I've never heard a good argument that ties the interrogation together with the assumption that she's lying, because on the other hand the police behavior culminating with the 'case closed' conference must also be taken into account, as well as their lying in court about it. Or is it your opinion that the police didn't lie about this element of the case?
 
What do you expect from the scientific literature? I guess I don't quite understand why all the papers that have been posted, dozens so far, have been unsatisfactory. What is the basis for your contention that Amanda is lying in that note? I maintain at this point she's been a more reliable source of the truth at this point than the police, and while her note may tell an unusual story, studying it and putting it into context leads to the conclusion she's telling the truth as best she can.

Granted it is possible for both the police and Amanda to be lying, but I guess I think that if her account in the note not only cannot be falsified, it actually bears resemblance to a known phenomena then in fact she's likely to be relating her confused memories and understanding of that night and the interrogation as best she can. She even gets corroboration for some of it from an unlikely source, the interrogator for the police!

It looks to me like she wrote that note to clarify what she was trying to get across in the interrogation, which is why when passed through the translator and then into the Statements it comes across so 'vague and confused.' She's was known for trying to work her thoughts out through writing from before she went to Perugia. Then she has her little Spiderman notebook in jail for her diary, again writing things out like the HIV table to figure out where she might have gotten it, just as she does in that note.

The just plain lying scenario might seem more plausible on the surface, but it mangles the known behavior of Amanda, it's just more 'Hapless Amanda/Captain Amanda' because she has to do this in a way that mirrors the conditions necessary for and symptoms of false memories, the basis of an internalized false confession and the whole 'recovered memory' fiasco which caused so much anguish. You can talk people into believing they committed a crime that they did not when they might fry for it, you can convince them they suffered sexual abuse when they did not, and you can also convince them they saw something they did not. There seems to be common themes amongst them as well, not all of them in every circumstance, but that's hardly necessary, just a few elements ought to do the trick. Yet if she can do all that, why succumb to it, and even if she did why not make it the dictionary definition?

I suspect they didn't finish the job on Amanda, she escaped their clutches in time and that note is a contemporaneous account of her mental state at that time. They put the heat on her but they didn't finish baking her, she was still cookie dough, not yet hardened and flattened into cookies, and that's what we see in that note. Her note is evidence, what is the evidence for the supposition that she's lying in it? The post you've said you agreed with exists only in a vacuum to me, unconnected to the rest of the case. ( :p ) I can't make sense of the interrogation if all that is mere mendacity, because it continues for several days after, not unlike the stronger internalized false confession that all the circumstances have been laid for and the symptoms exist.





Here's another one suggesting memory distortions in coerced false confessions and the conditions necessary:



There's numerous ways to suggest false memories evident in what we know of the interrogation:



On this issue the Hellmann Report will return a guilty verdict, which has to suggest that this note is a lie somehow, either the coercive elements did not exist, the repeated qualifiers are 'lies' and only the 'stand by' part is germane, or....I don't know. I'm curious how it might come out, thus interested in the discussion. I wrote a long response to the scenario you've repeatedly posted the other day but chose to demur instead for other reasons. I wonder if we are really all that far apart, as I too have come to suspect she never actually believed it wholeheartedly, but merely that it was possible and with the police turning the screws she simply acceded to their demands eventually, however what is the matter with this being the main reason she succumbed? They did in fact cause her to summon false images like she said that were just real enough for her to doubt her own memory and thus capitulate?

What's the evidence and argument behind any alternative story to hers? I guess that's what it comes down to. At this stage how can the default position be that she's lying, shouldn't that at least require something more than incredulity? I've never heard a good argument that ties the interrogation together with the assumption that she's lying, because on the other hand the police behavior culminating with the 'case closed' conference must also be taken into account, as well as their lying in court about it. Or is it your opinion that the police didn't lie about this element of the case?

Sorry, Machiavelli says all the lit provided says the opposite. This doesn't do that. Keep trying.
 
What I want to say, instead, is that the cops did not yell at her, they probably hit her twice on the head calling her stupid liar (to her benefit, since she was), they did not lie to her, they repeated her they did not believe her, and at a certain point they told her that Sollecito withdrew her alibi.
They also told her they believed she had met with someone (they assumed, the murderer) and that he was the person to which she texted.

They did not do that through the night. They did this between 23:00 and 1:30 at best which is two an a half hours.

And this caused no mental confusion. It only caused a series of further lies. And she told these lied out of any coercion and without any interrogation.

I also say that there is evidence there has been no mental confusion, and there is evidence there was a series of lies. Some of which unrelated to any police questioning.


It finally dawns on me how Machiavelli knows so much about what happened the night of the interrogation, and why "he" was present in court during the trial.

Machiavelli, you would not happen to have long chestnut hair, would you?

(I always thought "Yummi" was a pretty feminine name.)
 
Last edited:
Question: There's been a lot of discussion about Amanda's interrogation, but little about Raffaele's. I have never understood how he got into his situation. Amanda was a naive coed in an unfamiliar country, but Raffaele was the son of a wealthy, prominent doctor. He surely would have known something about Mignini and local police procedures, and his dad would surely have told his son something like "Don't say a word until I get down there with our lawyer." Raffaele might have been intimidated by the cops, but he likely would have felt some security from his family status. So why wasn't he smarter? Also, did the cops tape any interrogations with Raffaele or Rudy, or did they "forget" about them too?

RWVBWL alludes to the answer to your question in his next post, where he writes, "All the while, these 2 still made themselves available for further police questioning,..."

Raffaele and Amanda did not realize that the "interviews" that were held the night of the 5th and the morning of the 6th were going to be qualitatively different from the interviews they had responded to in the preceding days. They had been talking to the police since Day One, and when they went into the Questura that night, the cops presumably did not inform them ahead of time that things were going to be different.

Most of the interviews in the first three days probably had been about Meredith and her friends, not about Amanda and Raffaele's activities. Amanda and Raffaele had no reason to expect the interrogations, the taking of shoes, the yelling, the whacks on the head, etc.

No doubt everything was taped, then "lost." That's why the only record we have of Raffaele's interrogation was the verbal report the police gave to The Telegraph.

ETA: Raffaele made it clear in his diary that he thought cops were stupid. As "the son of a wealthy, prominent doctor," he may have felt immune to harm from the stupid cops.
 
Last edited:
<snip>I think the problem is the police had the wrong theory to begin with, and charges ("complicity to commit murder") were laid based on the faulty theory. I'm not sure how that can be resolved, but it seems more like a legal problem than anything else; the least sensible way to resolve it would be to assume there must have been multiple people involved based on the theory these police - these police - came up with at the very start of the case. Yet somehow, Mignini and Maresca have managed to make this the dominant view. Again, utterly crazy.

<snip>I think this is another case of them creating their own 'evidence.' They charge three people, thus they must find evidence of three people at the scene. Of course they don't, but they can sure find 'experts' to say that it is 'compatible' i.e. possible with a multiple attacker scenario, even though they are forced to admit that it's also compatible with a single attacker. Then they look for reasons it might be so, just like with the 'staged' break-in, finding reasons it might be so, then pretending it must be so.

<snip>I think it's more a case of them finding 'evidence' to match the number of people they arrested. I don't think they even intended to put Raffaele at the scene until they thought the shoe-treads matched, and even for a while after that they may have thought that happened after the murder, perhaps even the next day.

Interestingly, the very first police theory of the case was that it was what we all know it was -- a typical case of a single male attacker who broke in. This presumption was the focus of the very earliest reports (I used to have the links to The Times articles, but now I think one has to be a subscriber to see them).

It was only after Giobbi and Mignini found themselves aroused and thus resentful of Amanda and Raffaele that they started cooking up ways to keep them in captivity. As the recent 48 Hours special reinforced, Italian television showed the tape of Amanda and Raffaele kissing outside the cottage on November 2nd over and over and over and over.....
 
It finally dawns on me how Machiavelli knows so much about what happened the night of the interrogation, and why "he" was present in court during the trial.

Machiavelli, you would not happen to have long chestnut hair, would you?

(I always thought "Yummi" was a pretty feminine name.)

Are you actually implying that he's no one other than miss Napoleoni or the other female police officer that no doubt, hti Amanda ?

I doubt it, her English wouldn't be that good. Otherwise, there would be no confusion about what Amanda said during the famous interroagtion.:D
 
Last edited:
Here is something interesting from PMF. Jools translates and quotes a reader comment from Oggi, followed by a response from the editor, Umberto Brindani. Here is the part of his response:

3) Lumumba. Even considering the circumstances of the first interrogation (without a lawyer, with a “medium” ((Jools:average-?-)) interpreter, with 32 investigators following one after another in long hours of pressure, with cuffs, etc..) it certainly remains a “black hole” in the line of defense of the American [girl], but do not forget that to have him arrested it was not her, but prosecutor Mignini, without any verification, without any check, without any caution. He was kept two weeks in prison by the magistrates, not Amanda. And the three years would have been deducted with a legal pardon.


It does my heart so much good to see that, written by one of the editors of Italy's most popular magazine. Read enough Machiavelli and you start to wonder whether Italians are unfamiliar with the concept of personal responsibility.

Jools' full post can be found on this page (Fri Oct 14, 2011 1:14 am):

http://perugiamurderfile.org/viewtopic.php?f=1&t=428

Link to Oggi article in Italian: http://www.oggi.it/direttore/editoriale ... o-perugia/
 
Are you actually implying that he's no one other than miss Napoleoni or the other female police officer that no doubt, hti Amanda ?

I doubt it, her English wouldn't be that good. Otherwise, there would be no confusion about what Amanda said during the famous interroagtion.:D

:D No, no confusion at all.

Actually, I was thinking Rita Ficarra. She seems to have had the most direct conversation with Amanda, which suggests she speaks English.

ETA: Ficarra testified that she said to Amanda, "I told her if you tell me a lie one time, that is comprehensible, but if you lie again--even if it is a small lie-- it makes you less credible."

Read more: http://www.seattlepi.com/local/arti...te-police-testimony-1301356.php#ixzz1akg8hCJ5

Who do we know around here who is obsessed with Amanda lying?
 
Last edited:
Amanda and Raffaele and interviews

RWVBWL alludes to the answer to your question in his next post, where he writes, "All the while, these 2 still made themselves available for further police questioning,..."

Raffaele and Amanda did not realize that the "interviews" that were held the night of the 5th and the morning of the 6th were going to be qualitatively different from the interviews they had responded to in the preceding days. They had been talking to the police since Day One, and when they went into the Questura that night, the cops presumably did not inform them ahead of time that things were going to be different.

Most of the interviews in the first three days probably had been about Meredith and her friends, not about Amanda and Raffaele's activities. Amanda and Raffaele had no reason to expect the interrogations, the taking of shoes, the yelling, the whacks on the head, etc.
Mary_H and Bob001,
Amanda told Laura that she was yelled at in one interrogation prior to 5 November. Also, in a recent article about the Sollecitos, it came up that Raffaele's father had implied to him that one could trust the cops. I don't have a citation handy, but maybe someone else does.
 
Why do they even have the change of venue if they won't offer it in this case? That's just strange. They won't do it for Amanda, they won't do it for this girl, and frankly with the media attention Mignini got in Florence and the sort of people he pissed off from an entirely objective standpoint I would have thought that would be a fair judgment as well, regardless of how much I think the little slug needed to be stomped anyway.

It's kind of like when I was going through the Spader case and I'm thinking to myself 'if you haven't executed anyone in NH since the thirties and you're not going to fry this kid, why don't you just get rid of it?' I dunno just how much more repellent a case has to be than that one, don't look into it unless you have a barf bag handy!

From what I gather the SC has not denied everybody there hating on Sabrina and Cosima, but thinks the judges are fair. Beats me how the defense is supposed to show judges will not give a fair verdict before the verdict is judged. You make a good point. The blogger linked to says we can now count on a 30 year verdict reversed on appeal, has Italy learned nothing?

I hope Frank continues to blog about this case. There is still the question of detention and remains hope that they will be released pending the trial. The SC has said the evidence on most of the charges including murder is weak and has sent it back to the locals for a better reasoning to keep these two in jail.
 
Interestingly, the very first police theory of the case was that it was what we all know it was -- a typical case of a single male attacker who broke in. This presumption was the focus of the very earliest reports (I used to have the links to The Times articles, but now I think one has to be a subscriber to see them).

It was only after Giobbi and Mignini found themselves aroused and thus resentful of Amanda and Raffaele that they started cooking up ways to keep them in captivity. As the recent 48 Hours special reinforced, Italian television showed the tape of Amanda and Raffaele kissing outside the cottage on November 2nd over and over and over and over.....

To me the Raffaele information, his speaking, is what I look for each day. So curious what the silent one, will say.

Amanda too, it's also begun by her father, and not surprised the interrogation and those first few days will be the most interesting, imo.

To hear the two students speak out, instead of the Mignnini/Perugia clan perspective.

The pictures of her today, wearing the brite blue sweater also worn in her early hearing media frenzy pictures..."the cover girl" look shots...

http://en.loadtr.com/American_Amanda_Knox_-469937.htm

http://www.grahamlawyerblog.com/wp-content/uploads/2010/09/amanda-knox-1.jpg

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/wor...-after-Meredith-Kercher-murder-acquittal.html
 
Last edited:
Comodi's lies

I signed up to Twitter in the run up to the verdict, in order to follow in real time and join in, however, only just spotted a reply from Nadeau after I linked to the US-Italy Extradition treaty, which I thought might be of interest.

thebrionybot Bri1
@ @BLNadeau Here's the Extradition Treaty. Did Comodi really say it didn't exist? http://untreaty.un.org/unts/60001_120000/26/25/00051223.pdf
30 Sep Favorite Reply Delete in reply to ↑

@BLNadeau
Barbie Latza Nadeau @thebrionybot thanks for passing that on, means Comodi fibbed about extradition treaty.
30 Sep via TweetDeck
Favorite Retweet Reply

It highlights an issue which I believe has plagued this case from the beginning, and that is 'simplification'. Instead of explaining the 'probable cause clause' of the treaty, and how it makes extradition more unlikely and complex, Comodi just says, (and to a room full of journalists!) the treaty doesn't exist. (The reason for this lie- and it is a lie, not a fib, Barbie- is obvious- the probable cause clause wouldn't be a problem if there was any actual evidence in this case).
Police and prosecutors in this case have followed a methodology of argument which involves ripping facts away from context until they look suspicious, and simplifying 'truths' until they become lies.
So in this example, we have the complexity of the truth that it's unlikely that the US would ever extradite Knox, and then the (ultra) simplification to the point of falsity that 'there is no extradition treaty'. Simplifications designed to hide issues which are difficult for their side.

These people can have no credibility. Amanda's got more credibility in her little finger.
 
That's all well and good, but what kind of crime is it when the police hit a suspect? And then, if that hitting causes a false accusation, have the police calunniaed. I think they have.

Hit at 1:00 am, while the spontaneous statement is released four hours later after chamonille tee, no hitting, no yelling, no lies, no interrogation and before a magistrate and an interpreter. And the accusation repeated in a hand written note that was written voluntarily and given to the police. And then, no retraction nor explanation given subsequently nor in any other hearing. It seems for some reasons you always miss this bits.
 
"All Sources Will Be Kept Strictly Confidential"

Should the Knox/Mellas clan now offer a 50,000 EURO CASH REWARD for information leading to the positive identification, arrest and conviction of the person, or persons, alleged to have molested an American girl at the Perugian Police Station on the night of November 5, 2007?

///
 
Last edited:
It finally dawns on me how Machiavelli knows so much about what happened the night of the interrogation, and why "he" was present in court during the trial.

Machiavelli, you would not happen to have long chestnut hair, would you?

(I always thought "Yummi" was a pretty feminine name.)

No. But I do not have a dialogue with any who accuses me of false ideintity or impersonating others, and I think your post is a blatant violation of forum rules.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Back
Top Bottom