Continuation Part 3 - Discussion of the Amanda Knox case

[codyjuneau]

As Antony asked, have the people who say that DNA doesn't float ever heard of pollen?

And have the people that say DNA doesn't fly every heard of a bird?

 

[Osterwelle]

Ah good! Enjoy - it's fascinating viewing: both from a general perspective, and with particular regard to what may have befallen Knox in the Perugia police HQ on the 5th/6th November 2007. The guy who's the subject of the experiment is a very good analogue for Knox.

Hi LJ,

I just watched the episode and it was indeed facinating, especially the resemblence to what happened to Amanda Knox.

Ok, they had quite a bit of preparation but they didn't even interrogate him very much and didn't put any further pressure on him and yet that guy just went to the police station and confessed a murder he neither remembered nor committed. Just because they convinced him that he couldn't trust his memory.

Now if we look at Amanda, we most likely have the same "goodie-two-shoes", bit naive type of person. She's already very much under pressure and frightened, she's interviewed a lot during the whole week then gets called again to the station on Nov. 5th, late in the evening. She's already tired and then gets yelled at by a couple of italien policeman and they suggest scenarios to her until she finally comes up with a weired story because she doesn't believe her own memory anymore and just wants to go home.

To me that's a very plausible scenario. It always was, but that video added quite a bit to it. Really facinating.

-
Osterwelle

 

[Dougm]

Hi LJ,

I just watched the episode and it was indeed facinating, especially the resemblence to what happened to Amanda Knox.

Ok, they had quite a bit of preparation but they didn't even interrogate him very much and didn't put any further pressure on him and yet that guy just went to the police station and confessed a murder he neither remembered nor committed. Just because they convinced him that he couldn't trust his memory.

Now if we look at Amanda, we most likely have the same "goodie-two-shoes", bit naive type of person. She's already very much under pressure and frightened, she's interviewed a lot during the whole week then gets called again to the station on Nov. 5th, late in the evening. She's already tired and then gets yelled at by a couple of italien policeman and they suggest scenarios to her until she finally comes up with a weired story because she doesn't believe her own memory anymore and just wants to go home.

To me that's a very plausible scenario. It always was, but that video added quite a bit to it. Really facinating.

-
Osterwelle

I think you hit it on the head about Amanda's interrogation. Much discussion has been made about how many hours she was interrogated, if she had food or tea, etc., or if she was hit. Given her personality (naive, nice, trying to do the right thing) and her state of exhaustion, it didn't take much to get her to come up with the "visions" that she told police. A person like her is utterly unprepared for that type of situation, and the tiredness and stress made her easy pickings for a group of cops determined to get her to "confess".

 

[Bruce Fischer]

Fully aware of the sentiment here that those guilters on PMF are all idiots, and the site is a hateful horrid place.
Nonetheless, two PMF Italian speakers commented shortly after the Interview took place.

Clander put up the complete Interview in two very easy to view parts shortly after it was released

Clander's insightful separate comment shows unequivocally using his verbatim answers, how much difficulty Sollecito has in truthfully answering a simple direct question about smoking marijuana.
Clander does this by quoting verbatim Sollecito's several errr...versions... in his separate 'answers'.
(spare us the Marriott mantras about how liars' verbatim incriminating answers are just being 'misinterpreted'. etcccccccc)

A few of Popper's comments
1) Lots of not very meaningful questions. Lots of stupid answers.
2) RS said he is not afraid of Cassazione ... but then he explains he is basically afraid.
3) Lots of rehearsed phrases. Clearly interview pre-agreed and recorded, so RS was probably paid
4) Very generic, lots of words not touching the merit of facts ... not the way an innocent man talks ... this interview was a mistake for RS ...

Fully aware also that these PMF "idiots" may have some preconceived convictions about guilt.
However, their personal beliefs in translating are certainly no more objectionable than the IIP provided "translations/summaries" of early Appeal documents that were so widely heralded here as biblical in accuracy, yet later shown to be blatantly biased and slanted.

I am surprised that there is no Pilot Padron registered at PMF. I would think that someone like yourself that follows the group so closely would want to be a member.

 

[Bruce Fischer]

In addition to what you mentioned about IIP having a main website that has trial documents, evidence analysis, etc. and a separate forum for discussion, there are also two parts to the forum. There is a Public Forum, which anyone can read, and a Member Forum, which you need to register for to be able to read. Registering as a member is a simple process, if one chooses to do so, and there is no difficult screening process.

The public forum, which anyone can see, and where most of the actual case discussion takes place, is here: http://www.injusticeinperugiaforum.org. You have to register to comment, I believe, but that is the same as almost any forum I can think of (PMF is the same), and people can and do make up whatever screen names they want to . Our friend Mach has posted there frequently.

Thanks for posting DougM.

We don't hide anything from anyone and we don't ban people. Pilot is not being truthful when he discusses IIP. Is that a surprise to anyone?

 

[Fine]

Hmmm. I see that Nick Pisa has used some damn strong language today, reporting on Raffaele's television interview...........


"Sollecito and Knox were originally convicted in December 2009 and freed a month ago on appeal after a damning independent report by two court-appointed experts tore apart the original police investigation and especially the DNA evidence used to convict them." (HERE) Is Nick now also on the Marriott-FOA-Bruce Fisher payroll?


///

 

[Dougm]

Is Nick now also on the Marriott-FOA-Bruce Fisher payroll?


///

He must have heard about the Maseratis we all got!

 

[RWVBWL]

He must have heard about the Maseratis we all got!

You guys got Masseratis?
I'm only supposed to be gettin' a NEW surfboard that I was promised for the 870 posts I've written. Man, I knew I shoulda went to college!


Anyways, I want to talk about photo's.
It's interesting to read the written theories we each have, but when I look at photographs my mind starts to wander. I had a look at October 2008 Perugia Shock yesterday, there are some photographs of Meredith's body that still bother me regarding the single assailant theory. And the accidental stabbing theory.

If you want to see the article, it's towards the bottom of the page:
Tuesday, October 14, 2008
Pointing at the Murderer
When the body talks

Link:
http://web.archive.org/web/20101015182552/http://perugia-shock.blogspot.com/2008_10_01_archive.html

Those bruises shown on Meredith's arms. Held by only 1 person, Rudy Guede? Or another person involved too? How did he attack her without much evidence of an apparent struggle in any of the rooms in the upstairs apartment? Does he hold her with both arms if he has a knife also? Was it in his back pocket? Did he release 1 of her arms and then reach for the knife and Meredith started hitting him? Did the knife get pulled out and then Meredith blocked it a few times, causing the tiny cuts on her hands? I mentioned recently that there only seems like 1 room in both upstairs and downstair apartments where a struggle occurred. Thinking aloud, I'd wondered if it started downstairs in Stefano's bedroom if Meredith had went to check on the hurt cat before she retired for the night. Was Meredith overpowered and then walked upstairs with her arms held behind her back? When did the little cuts get there on her palms? The bruises on her jaw? This kind of fight would seem to have disturbed some of the surroundings in a room. Like in Stefano's room. Cornered, on his bed. There were blood drops found on his comforter, which had been shoved on top of his bed. This seems like were a fight 1st took place. Whereas Meredith's bedroom, as neat as it was with that glass still having water in it, and that stack of mail sitting neatly on her nightstand next to her bed, an initial, suprising struggle does not look like it went down, I feel.

So I really wonder if Meredith was suprised and grabbed in her bedroom and then stabbed just a minute or so later after Rudy Guede started touching her. It just doesn't seem to add up, in my humble opinion...
RW

 

[UnrepentantSinner]

Notwithstanding applicability of Son of Sam laws in US.

Since my entire post was predicated on how Amanda's unjustified imprisonment and eventual, complete exoneration related to the Son of Sam law, I'm not interested in playing any semantic games. She was not convicted in an American court so there's a question as to whether the law would apply to her in the first place. Her initial conviction in that Italian kangaroo court means nothing. It was overturned on appeal, and I'll bold this for the hard of reading, because she did not commit the crime of which she was accused. For all intents and purposes, that serves the same legal standing in the U.S. of having your conviction overturned (meaning it never happened as far as your status as a citizen goes) or having been exonerated by DNA evidence. It mean the conviction never happend.

Oh, and that variant of slander that the Italian kangaroo court desperately tried to pin on her is a joke. It won't effect anything and doesn't mean anything.

You are entitled to your *opinion* on that matter, as well as whether she will be paid.

There's no "opinion" involved, just facts. Like the fact that she has a book and movie deal in the works and has multiple offers for an interview. She's going to paid, and very well I might add.
Ka-Ching$$$

Marriott managed PR talking point

Oh, you're one of them...

In the US she is "convicted" as of now, and must so state on all US Applications requesting that information.

Citation instead of bald assertion?

But your "Ka-Ching" was indeed a welcome and appreciated touch of clever visual levity.
Despite the fact that "ker-flop" might well be proven to be more appropriate

Look, I'm sorry that you invested so much of your heart and soul into destroying an innocent young woman wrongly accused and falsely imprisoned by an Italian kangaroo court, but our Innocent Abroad is home, safe were she belongs and she's going to get compensated for her suffering at the hands of the Italian kangaroo court. Why don't you just get on with your life and let Amanda get back to hers.
Ka-Ching$$$

 

[Antony]

And have the people that say DNA doesn't fly every heard of a bird?

All of that is a straw man anyway, based on supposed speculation about how Raff's DNA could have "flown through the air" and landed on the bra clasp. It didn't need to, when the police investigators helpfully filmed themselves handling the object with dirty gloves.

That's even if Stefanoni's method of arbitrarily picking out Raff's DNA markers from a complete jumble of them, had had any validity.

 

[bri1]

Hi LJ,

I just watched the episode and it was indeed facinating, especially the resemblence to what happened to Amanda Knox.

Ok, they had quite a bit of preparation but they didn't even interrogate him very much and didn't put any further pressure on him and yet that guy just went to the police station and confessed a murder he neither remembered nor committed. Just because they convinced him that he couldn't trust his memory.

Now if we look at Amanda, we most likely have the same "goodie-two-shoes", bit naive type of person. She's already very much under pressure and frightened, she's interviewed a lot during the whole week then gets called again to the station on Nov. 5th, late in the evening. She's already tired and then gets yelled at by a couple of italien policeman and they suggest scenarios to her until she finally comes up with a weired story because she doesn't believe her own memory anymore and just wants to go home.

To me that's a very plausible scenario. It always was, but that video added quite a bit to it. Really facinating.

-
Osterwelle

I just also watched the Derren Brown experiment about false confession. I found it extremely uncomfortable. Seeing a young man crying because he thinks he killed someone is never going to be comfortable, I suppose. I wish Derren had linked it to some real life cases- this case, plus the WM3 are both high profile cases involving false confession which have been in the headlines this year, and I think it might have made the suffering caused in this programme seem a little more worthwhile.
But it was extremely interesting, especially as the guilters like to say that the interrogation was very short, and no-one could falsely confess in that short a time-frame. The subject of the experiment, Jody, confessed without any overt suggestion from anyone else that he was involved. He confessed after an interview with police lasting less than 5 minutes!
The similarities were striking: a young, trusting, intelligent, law-abiding person, with reason to doubt his own memory.
The show emphasised the role of guilt, and that is an interesting aspect of the AK situation. 'Survivor's guilt' is a fairly well-known phenomenon, which I think played a role in Amanda's statements.

 

[LondonJohn]

I think the problem is that this evidence of other people is still very weak.

It's possible but outside Massei's head that doesn't get you to probable.

Of course if the investigating authorities had been remotely competent or ethical they would have obtained DNA samples, fingerprints and foot imprints from all of the housemates, Kokomani, Curatolo and anyone else who could possibly have been involved and checked all of the evidence against all of these reference samples.
If Kokomani's DNA or fingerprints showed up inside the house that would potentially be very powerful evidence he was directly involved. However the police simply didn't check for it, as I understand it, so we'll never know.

Even if you think he was involved (and I think it's more likely than not he knows more than he is saying), it could just be that he was acting as a lookout for Guede and fell asleep on the job, or was his getaway driver, and had no direct involvement in the unpremeditated murder of Meredith Kercher. I believe under Italian law he could still get a heavy sentence for that, so he would have motivation to lie.

Some bitter and unbalanced idiots have suggested that it would have been impossible (because it would have been unlawful) for the police to have obtained prints and DNA from the people you've suggested. This is, of course, total and utter nonsense. It's true that the police could not compel such people to provide fingerprints/DNA, but the idiots have not figured out how it could be done in spite of this.

Here's how it's done, idiots: you ask these subjects if they will voluntarily provide samples of fingerprints/DNA. If any subject has nothing to hide, it's likely that he/she will willingly provide such samples voluntarily, so long as they are assured that the samples provided will be used only for the purposes of exclusion, and will be destroyed afterwards if they are of no probative value.

Now, there are two very useful angles to this approach. Firstly, often the real culprit will, if asked to volunteer samples, actually agree to do so, for (correct) fear of looking suspicious if he/she refuses. In fact, this is exactly what happened in the case of Vincent Tabak in the Jo Yeates murder case. He called detectives while on holiday in the Netherlands a couple of weeks after the murder, to claim he had interesting information regarding his landlord (who has just been arrested in relation to the murder). Detectives from Bristol flew over to interview him, and in the process they asked him to volunteer his DNA. He agreed to do so - either through sheer arrogance or a fear of looking suspicious if he refused - and it was this sample that first tied him to the murder.

And secondly, police often employ mass voluntary screenings of DNA in order to whittle down the suspect pool. In fact, the very first ever use of DNA profiling in a criminal investigation employed just such a technique: police in Leicestershire asked all men between around 18 and 60 to volunteer their DNA to try to find a sex killer. They reasoned three things: a) all innocent men would be willing to volunteer, as they would be ken to help catch the real killer; b) such an exercise would eliminate the vast majority of the potential culprit pool; and c) that the real culprit might try somehow to evade the test. What happened was that the real culprit, Colin Pitchfork, persuaded a work colleague to supply DNA on his behalf, using a spurious excuse to convince his somewhat simple workmate that he (Pitchfork) has legitimate reasons for the deception that were unrelated to the murders. However, the workmate mouthed of about it later in the pub, and Pitchfork was subsequently convicted.

So, in the Perugia case, the police could easily have simply asked a large number of people with connections to the cottage or Meredith to volunteer their DNA and fingerprints to help with the enquiry. It's highly likely that all innocent parties would have readily agreed to do so, provided that certain safeguards were agreed, since nearly all innocent people do not want to be seen to be obstructing a police search for the culprit. If anyone had refused to provide samples, this refusal in itself would have raised a huge red flag for the police, and would have given them cause to investigate such an individual in far more depth.

I am frankly astonished that the idiots hadn't figured this utterly obvious issue out for themselves. I've even more amazed that the most vocal naysayer claims to have a legal background. But there's no accounting for stupidity, I suppose......

 

[LondonJohn]

I just also watched the Derren Brown experiment about false confession. I found it extremely uncomfortable. Seeing a young man crying because he thinks he killed someone is never going to be comfortable, I suppose. I wish Derren had linked it to some real life cases- this case, plus the WM3 are both high profile cases involving false confession which have been in the headlines this year, and I think it might have made the suffering caused in this programme seem a little more worthwhile.
But it was extremely interesting, especially as the guilters like to say that the interrogation was very short, and no-one could falsely confess in that short a time-frame. The subject of the experiment, Jody, confessed without any overt suggestion from anyone else that he was involved. He confessed after an interview with police lasting less than 5 minutes!
The similarities were striking: a young, trusting, intelligent, law-abiding person, with reason to doubt his own memory.
The show emphasised the role of guilt, and that is an interesting aspect of the AK situation. 'Survivor's guilt' is a fairly well-known phenomenon, which I think played a role in Amanda's statements.

I totally agree, and I'm glad you found the programme as thought-provoking and illuminating as I did. I only hope that some of the more rabid pro-guilt commentators have the time or inclination to view it. But then that would require an open mind and a thirst for truth & knowledge, so perhaps my hope is a little far-fetched.....

 

[bri1]

I totally agree, and I'm glad you found the programme as thought-provoking and illuminating as I did. I only hope that some of the more rabid pro-guilt commentators have the time or inclination to view it. But then that would require an open mind and a thirst for truth & knowledge, so perhaps my hope is a little far-fetched.....

It was thought-provoking, and I share your hopes...
However, as with the other experiments, I have a really hard time watching people in distress, knowing that within the scientific community these experiments would be deemed highly unethical.
I do know that aside from the guilters, many people only casually following this case believe that AK must have had some involvement because of the false confession, and I think this programme might be successful in at least opening their minds to the notion that false confessions are easy to obtain.
My worry is that those people probably associate hypnotism with magic, as opposed to being based on fairly basic psychological principles, and take the attitude that 'police don't hypnotise people', therefore Derren's results aren't comparable with false confession within real life investigations.

 

[davefoc]

It was thought-provoking, and I share your hopes...
However, as with the other experiments, I have a really hard time watching people in distress, knowing that within the scientific community these experiments would be deemed highly unethical.
I do know that aside from the guilters, many people only casually following this case believe that AK must have had some involvement because of the false confession, and I think this programme might be successful in at least opening their minds to the notion that false confessions are easy to obtain.
My worry is that those people probably associate hypnotism with magic, as opposed to being based on fairly basic psychological principles, and take the attitude that 'police don't hypnotise people', therefore Derren's results aren't comparable with false confession within real life investigations.

I do not think the term false confession with regards to this case should ever be used without quotes. Without an explanation the obvious meaning of that phrase is that Knox confessed to killing Mercher. She did not in any way obviously and as such the use of the phrase is just a continuation of the initial libels against her that were instituted by a media more interested in selling stories than facts. It is, perhaps, more accurate to call it a false accusation, but I also object to that phrase. What she said was equivocal enough when taken in totality that I don't believe it rose to the level of an actual accusation. Certainly, tried on its own in an objective court she would never be found guilty of making a false statement to the police or to falsely implicating another individual. And given the circumstances that the statement was made under any charges stemming from it are a travesty of justice.

 

[Didaktylos]

...
And secondly, police often employ mass voluntary screenings of DNA in order to whittle down the suspect pool. In fact, the very first ever use of DNA profiling in a criminal investigation employed just such a technique: police in Leicestershire asked all men between around 18 and 60 to volunteer their DNA to try to find a sex killer. They reasoned three things: a) all innocent men would be willing to volunteer, as they would be ken to help catch the real killer; b) such an exercise would eliminate the vast majority of the potential culprit pool; and c) that the real culprit might try somehow to evade the test. What happened was that the real culprit, Colin Pitchfork, persuaded a work colleague to supply DNA on his behalf, using a spurious excuse to convince his somewhat simple workmate that he (Pitchfork) has legitimate reasons for the deception that were unrelated to the murders. However, the workmate mouthed of about it later in the pub, and Pitchfork was subsequently convicted.
...

Something that is often forgotten when the Narborough/Enderby rape/murders are mentioned in relation to DNA profiling is just how close that case came to being a miscarriage of justice. (The definitive specific detailed account of this case is "The Blooding" by Joseph Wambaugh.) A young man named Richard Buckland who worked as a kitchen porter at the local psychiatric hospital and had a history of minor sexual offences and was indeed under arrest for such offenses was routinely questioned by the murder enquiry detectives and confessed to the second killing (Dawn Ashworth) but adamantly maintained his innocence on the first (Lynda Mann). Someone either on the team or with indirect connections to it had heard about DNA profiling (Alec Jeffries had published just a few months previously) and suggested this might provide the leverage they needed to break him. So samples were obtained from Buckland and compared to the semen samples obtained from the bodies of both the victims. Apparently the news was presented like a macabre version of a good news/bad news joke: the good news is the detectives were right, it was the same man who raped (and presumably murdered) both girls; the bad news was it was not the person they had in custody. This completely derailed the investigation - this was exculpatory evidence the prosecution would have been obliged to give to the defense. The Leicester County Constabulary were able to minimise their public embarrassment by agreeing to drop all charges against Buckland, including the unrelated sexual offenses he had originally been arrested for. Oh, and in spite of the DNA profiles, many of the detectives were reluctant to accept Buckland's exoneration until well after Pitchfork was apprehended.

 

[bolint]

Raffaele interview:

The evening of the murder what did you do?
RS: One can’t remember every detail. Paradoxically it was a beautiful evening for me, spent with Amanda, in love, with hugs, affection, like two children, joyful, like other evenings we had spent together.

So no talk of the heavy duty computer session anymore?

Those people don’t know the facts and don’t want to know them.

Strange to hear that from someone who has been exercising his right to silence for four years.
Come on Raffaele! I really want to know the facts.

 

[RoseMontague]

Raffaele interview:
Come on Raffaele! I really want to know the facts.

I guess you will have to wait and read the report.

Most of the pro-guilt arguments that I see have come down to character attacks rather than a discussion of the facts. A pro-guilt poster once said:

Sometimes, once reason has been exhausted, ridicule is an appropriate response.

It depends on what reasoning you go by. This has a tendency to work both ways and I am seeing a lot of this from both sides. It will be interesting comparing the reasoning of the Hellmann report to that of the Massei report.

 

[bolint]

The telephone records also locate the phone still far from Lana's garden (likely at the cottage) after 22.00. Itself, this datum is not very compatible with an aggression at 9:00, because requires the burglar to remain in the house for an hour after the murder. But also, the phone cell 0064 was lost by the device only at 24:00, not earlier, since at this time - not earlier - for the first time the phone automatically pings at the cell compatible with Lana's garden.

But that cell is also compatible with Rudy's place.

It is not so clear if it is compatible with Raffaele's place. The Massei report lists some cells that are available at his place but they are all only Vodafones, while Merediths's phone was pinged by a Wind cell.
They should have checked both Rudy's and Raffaele's place for Wind cells, too. I don't know if they did, but it is not in the report.

the defendants simply have no alibi after 8:40.

Someone was using the machine at 21:10 even according to the police.
And the 21:26 Naruto opening found by the defence also seems good.
So I think Raffaele has alibi up to at least 21:30.

 

[bolint]

I guess you will have to wait and read the report.
(...)
It will be interesting comparing the reasoning of the Hellmann report to that of the Massei report

I don't expect much facts in it. It will decompose Massei's and will conclude that the proof is missing.