Continuation Part 3 - Discussion of the Amanda Knox case

[LondonJohn]

Actually, I think when she ran out to get Raff, she left with the intention of bringing help for Meredith, I don't think Raff knew Meredith was dead, he didn't get far enough into the house and Amanda stayed outside. Amanda didn't have her phone, she said herself, it was plugged in to charge up for the trip the next day. I really don't believe Amanda and Raff knew Meredith was murdered untill thyy went back to the house after 11:30 when Rudy was definately gone. Perhaps by then they felt it was to late to call the police and they needed to clear Amanda's involvement, hence the break-in and locking of Meredith's door.

But if things had happened as you propose, then even if Knox and Sollecito tried to cover up their involvement initially (as per your version), doesn't logic dictate that at least one of them would have admitted the truth once they were formally charged with murder? Do you really think that both Knox and Sollecito would be prepared to gamble that they'd get acquitted on a murder charge for a murder they didn't commit (with the risk of 20+ years in prison if they were convicted), in favour of admitting to a far, far lesser crime?

And in any case, why on earth would Knox and Sollecito both have instinctively wanted to cover anything up regarding Meredith's murder, if - as per your version - Guede solely committed the murder, Knox was unaware of the murder (though present in the vicinity), and Sollecito wasn't even there at the time? It's all very well saying that Knox and Sollecito might have been afraid of reprisals from Guede, but I find it impossible to believe that this would have prevented them from naming him to the police. After all, it appears that the police even told Knox during the infamous 5th/6th November interrogation that one reason why she should finger Lumumba was that the police would go and arrest him and thus safeguard Knox herself. Granted, Guede was on the run from two days after the murder, but the police could have flooded Perugia looking for Guede, put out an APB across Europe, and raided his apartment if Knox (or Sollecito) had named Guede as the killer any time between the 2nd and the 18th November. It just doesn't make sense.

And that's before we even get to the central issue of why Knox was meeting up with Guede and letting him in to use the bathroom in the first place.....

 

[Rashomon fan]

One last "noob" question

I remember reading -- but can not remember or find where -- a defense lawyer stating matter-of-factly that the prosecution had consistently slow-leaked details of the case to the press as part of their strategy.

I know there's a lot of this in blogs and other outside sources, but this was a court document in English translation somewhere. It could have been Rudy's, Amanda's or Raffaelle's attorney, or quoted by a judge in a summation or motivation. Did anything like this lodge in anyone else's memory bank?

Every time I read about the Knox PR machine, (you know, when I lurk over there) I think "yeah, but, there was a good reason they needed one of their own."

 

[LondonJohn]

I remember reading -- but can not remember or find where -- a defense lawyer stating matter-of-factly that the prosecution had consistently slow-leaked details of the case to the press as part of their strategy.

I know there's a lot of this in blogs and other outside sources, but this was a court document in English translation somewhere. It could have been Rudy's, Amanda's or Raffaelle's attorney, or quoted by a judge in a summation or motivation. Did anything like this lodge in anyone else's memory bank?

Every time I read about the Knox PR machine, (you know, when I lurk over there) I think "yeah, but, there was a good reason they needed one of their own."

You need look no further than one of the journalists involved - Barbie Latza Nadeau - who documented explicitly in her articles and book how prosecutors and police handed out crime scene photos, information on suspects/defendants and other juicy tidbits like autopsy information. This sort of stuff was supplied on an ongoing basis to journalists (especially ones who were pliable to the prosecution case, such as the aforementioned Nadeau).

To my knowledge, the "Knox PR Juggernaut" did not engage in tit-for-tat activity in this area. I am, however, aware that they used a tactic of withholding access to journos who were openly in league with prosecutors (such as Nadeau). I'm not sure whether this was a wise tactic or not, but I suppose it ensured that Knox's family's message got out through those sections of the media which tended to be more sympathetic to the defence case.

 

[Rashomon fan]

I agree, there are some very intelligent people from the PG sites. That is why I am baffled as to why they support the idea of banning people with differing viewpoints while they are free to bring their viewpoints here. Seems like a double standard.

I liked quadraginta's explanation yesterday. It's not so much a double standard as a different standard.

 

[LondonJohn]

Oh, and regarding the subject of information leaks, it also seems highly likely that someone within the Perugia police or prosecutors' office supplied unofficial photos of the crime scene and the cottage to a UK photo agency (Barcroft), who in turn brokered the photos to media publications (presumably on a highest-bidder basis, since the photos ended up being published in two UK national tabloid newspapers). Quite apart from the underlying ethical issues involved here, there is also a second issue of whether or not the originator of the photos (who must have been either a police officer or someone from the prosecutors' office) received payment when these photos were ultimately bought by the UK newspapers

(This issue was discussed in depth here a week or two ago, if you feel like searching back to find it).

 

[Rashomon fan]

You need look no further than one of the journalists involved - Barbie Latza Nadeau - who documented explicitly in her articles and book how prosecutors and police handed out crime scene photos, information on suspects/defendants and other juicy tidbits like autopsy information. This sort of stuff was supplied on an ongoing basis to journalists (especially ones who were pliable to the prosecution case, such as the aforementioned Nadeau).

To my knowledge, the "Knox PR Juggernaut" did not engage in tit-for-tat activity in this area. I am, however, aware that they used a tactic of withholding access to journos who were openly in league with prosecutors (such as Nadeau). I'm not sure whether this was a wise tactic or not, but I suppose it ensured that Knox's family's message got out through those sections of the media which tended to be more sympathetic to the defence case.

Thanks LJ, I'm just frustrated that I read about a campaign of deliberate prosecution leaks somewhere in a (translated) court document and now I can't find it.

As for Barbie, and her insta-book, she was initially my source for (very infrequent) info about the case through The Daily Beast but I never got the slightest feeling that AK and RS might be guilty. I will always be grateful to her for this insight from her book, p. 43:

..."the investigation into Meredith's murder might have gone very differently under the auspices of the" ... "RIS." ... "Instead the postal police called the Polizia (state police), who called in their own crime scene experts, known as the ERT." ... "The more sophisticated RIS tends to investigate Italy's most violent crimes and Mafia hits. The ERT generally handles domestic violence cases, but is eager to prove that it is every bit as good as the RIS."

I thought that was a very helpful insight into the police investigation.

 

[Rashomon fan]

Oh, and regarding the subject of information leaks, it also seems highly likely that someone within the Perugia police or prosecutors' office supplied unofficial photos of the crime scene and the cottage to a UK photo agency (Barcroft), who in turn brokered the photos to media publications (presumably on a highest-bidder basis, since the photos ended up being published in two UK national tabloid newspapers). Quite apart from the underlying ethical issues involved here, there is also a second issue of whether or not the originator of the photos (who must have been either a police officer or someone from the prosecutors' office) received payment when these photos were ultimately bought by the UK newspapers

(This issue was discussed in depth here a week or two ago, if you feel like searching back to find it).

Yes, search the site. I forgot I can do that over here.

 

[Draca]

Rose, I know this is way off topic but something has been bothering me ever since I started following this thread some 2 or more years ago...who the heck was the red headed girl in your previous avatar??

It's the woman from 5th Element. Milla Jovovich.

I was wondering that , too!

I was wondering too! For ages! I don't know why I never asked.
I like that photo.

 

[JREF2010]

I was wondering that , too!

you ever watch the movie the 5th Element? Bruce Willis...often suggested as a test movie in HDTV sho0touts because of the excellent filming too...sci-fi movie.

 

[JREF2010]

I can see a possibility that she was entirely innocent, perhaps 25%, but I still believe she was involved to some extent, say 75%. I am fairly sure she was not in on the murder, her total involvement was most likely just letting Rudy into the house to use the bathroom, she ran away when things started to get out of hand and returned with RS.

I also thing the 4 years she spent in jail is about right for her involvement and I also believe that she basically told the truth as best as she could, without showing her involvement. I blame her parents for this, I believe she wanted to tell the truth all along, it was her parent and lawyers that basically told her to shut up.
The statement she gave to the cops was basically correct, except she couldn't give Rudy's name, he was still on the loose and she didn't know where he was, she was terrified of him, she saw first hand what he was capable of.

During the appeals she also sated the other than in a courtroom, the three of them were never under the same roof, they weren't, because when she came back with RS, she stayed outside like Rudy said.

Do you really think, when Meredith's door was about to be kicked in, Amanda would stay in the kitchen with Raff, having already done here part. I could go on and on but whats the point, I believe justice was served and Rudy got off too light.

I agree 100% on Rudys sentence being a insult to Merediths taken life. Fast Track should be reserved for those who tell the complete truth and allow the victims family closure. Rudy didnt do this, he only covered his own pathetic life. The Fast Track makes the system look like any murder is only worth 15yrs or less, not much to pay for taking someones life and then refusing to tell the truth.

The Amanada witnessed it, and Raffaele showed up the next day scenario is intersting read but...

I dont buy it, the two were too soft for holding out this long. Raffaele and Amanda would have truly gave it up, especially after the Massei trial.

Its more likely Rudy was just trying to save his own pathetic self. He told Matteini he fled the cottage around 10:30, Meredith's cellphone fled the cottage around 10:30, 10:13pm actually. Rudy lied and changed storys, and fled which is a common trait, per experts, of the guilty. Rudy committed the rape and murder...remeber the real knife was never found, and Rudy knows where it is imo.

Remember the police with the cell phones, testified, Amanda took them in immediately to show them miniscule specs of blood etc...this isnt what someone who spent all night cleaning up does. And they surely wouldnt have called 112 before they were done cleaning up, so that doesnt work anymore, imo. Illogical.

Sherlock I have thought through that same scenario you mentioned also, but again it would require Raffaele keeping silent about it in prison for years, I find that highly unlikely. I find a problem with this scenario, that Raffaele sits in prison for 4yrs when all he did was show up the next morning and help cleanup? nah...

 

[pilot padron]

This has been explained here previously.

I would just like for someone from .net or .org that posts here to explain something to me. Why is it that anyone believing in guilt is free to post here, but no one believing in innocense is permitted to post there. I think if their home site will not allow both sides of the argument there, then they should not come here to post . Just my opinion.
Actually, the correct scenario would be anyone free to post on any site.

My appologies for the double post

I agree, there are some very intelligent people from the PG sites. That is why I am baffled as to why they support the idea of banning people with differing viewpoints while they are free to bring their viewpoints here. Seems like a double standard.

I will try to explain, although I probably do not fit your description of a poster you wish to hear from.

Your opinion that "no one believing in innocense (sp) is permitted to post there" is an inaccurate, unjustified, overly simplistic generalization.

Most people have been banned from PMF because they cannot follow Rules, and/or specific instructions from Administrators. (sound familiar ?)

The Administrators at PMF specifically try to minimize posters who typically come to the Board:
1) under the guise of "seeking information to help them decide about guilt"
2) who then deceitfully deliberately resurrect talking point, simpleton arguments that have been completely and exhaustively examined and discarded in the past.
3) after many new rebuttals, the soon to be banned poster continues circular arguing, with plentiful pedantic parsing, numerous nit picking off topic justifications, etcccc. (sound familiar?)

The Administrator:
1) wishes to avoid 70,000+ circular arguments that still cannot decide whether a cartwheel was only a yoga stretch (sound familiar ?)
2) shows how the resurrected talking point topic from the 'new' poster is little more than an unwelcome disruption of the normal flow of the Forum.
3) suggests that the poster either start a new topic or take a break from posting about the well beaten redundant rubbish talking points.
This is very similar to warnings and probation here (sound familiar?)

When, *and only when*, the poster refuses to comply with the Rules, and Administrator specific warnings that are similar to a Mod Box and/or a yellow flag warnings here, the poster gets suspended and/or banned. (sound familiar ?)

Recently, this type of problematic poster became so rampant that the Administrators took action to prevent having to later ban such undesirable deceitful 'disrupters' by preventing registrations after investigations.

Appologies (sp) to those who have seen this explanatory argument scores of times .

 

[Dougm]

The Administrators at PMF specifically try to minimize posters who typically come to the Board:
1) under the guise of "seeking information to help them decide about guilt"
2) who then deceitfully deliberately resurrect talking point, simpleton arguments that have been completely and exhaustively examined and discarded in the past.3) after many new rebuttals, the soon to be banned poster continues circular arguing, with plentiful pedantic parsing, numerous nit picking off topic justifications, etcccc. (sound familiar?)

Re: Highlight above. I believe the other way to describe this type of post is, "opinion that is contrary to what the other posters on the forum agree with".

 

[Bruce Fischer]

I will try to explain, although I probably do not fit your description of a poster you wish to hear from.

Your opinion that "no one believing in innocense (sp) is permitted to post there" is an inaccurate, unjustified, overly simplistic generalization.

Most people have been banned from PMF because they cannot follow Rules, and/or specific instructions from Administrators. (sound familiar ?)

The Administrators at PMF specifically try to minimize posters who typically come to the Board:
1) under the guise of "seeking information to help them decide about guilt"
2) who then deceitfully deliberately resurrect talking point, simpleton arguments that have been completely and exhaustively examined and discarded in the past.
3) after many new rebuttals, the soon to be banned poster continues circular arguing, with plentiful pedantic parsing, numerous nit picking off topic justifications, etcccc. (sound familiar?)

The Administrator:
1) wishes to avoid 70,000+ circular arguments that still cannot decide whether a cartwheel was only a yoga stretch (sound familiar ?)
2) shows how the resurrected talking point topic from the 'new' poster is little more than an unwelcome disruption of the normal flow of the Forum.
3) suggests that the poster either start a new topic or take a break from posting about the well beaten redundant rubbish talking points.
This is very similar to warnings and probation here (sound familiar?)

When, *and only when*, the poster refuses to comply with the Rules, and Administrator specific warnings that are similar to a Mod Box and/or a yellow flag warnings here, the poster gets suspended and/or banned. (sound familiar ?)

Recently, this type of problematic poster became so rampant that the Administrators took action to prevent having to later ban such undesirable deceitful 'disrupters' by preventing registrations after investigations.

Appologies (sp) to those who have seen this explanatory argument scores of times .

You know an awful lot about that site for claiming to only be a lurker. Are you sure you are not a registered member there?

 

[JREF2010]

This is interesting, and I had in the past reflected that something of this nature might be true.

But don't you think it would be a bit more than opening the door, and allowing Guede to use the bathroom?

I think most young people, myself at that age as well, would call the police upon finding that this acquaintance that was let in had brutally killed one's roommmate.

I had thought once that maybe Knox and Sollecito, in a silly or angry mood, or stoned, had suggested to Rudy that he should rob the place while everyone was away. Then, when they discovered what he had done, in horror they saw that he might talk, might tell police that they had suggested a robbery....

yes the variations are interesting, I agree. Oddly even Rudy's murder alibi, of someone coming and fleeing, almost could leave a opportunity for many scenarios.

The opening the door by Meredith, makes no sense for Rudy to lie about meeting Meredith in the driveway then, as he said he did. imo. That was Micheli even, saying Amanda had a key. So did Meredith? Maybe someone knocked and Meredith answered? Maybe Rudy et her in the driveway and put the knife to her neck immediately? We'll never know. Maybe Rudy was already inside when Meredith entered?

The opening the door scenario seems to be unsupported by even Rudy.
Why would Rudy need to lie about it , if Meredith let him, or them, in?
Why would Rudy tell the tale of lurking around the cottage long before the date and going downstairs and upstairs? Theres no need for that.

What would be the motivation to not simply say Meredith let me in, or Meredith let them all in?

And again, I get stuck on the two data points of the 9:26pm pc activity and the 10:13pm cell log outside the cottage, different than all the calls made earlier that day by Meredith. To me it means the murder was complete by 10:13pm, when Rudy said he fled. And that fits with all the witnesses afterwards with the Tow Truck.

And for Rudy to work Amanda and Raffaele in the crime, they would have had to leave the pc and walk over in the cold evening, to the cottage , and murder and flee.
Logically there still there is no motive for this? Especially Raffaele has no motive! Why would he have a motivation to do this shortly after talking to his Dad for sometime? Its illogical.

And the two lovebirds were so recently together, there would be no covering for the other in a murder situation, would there?

They were basically strangers. Not the kind of bond for one to be innocent and the other guilty , and the innocent willing to risk prison for the other? not likely. Who would sit in prison for life, to help someone they hardly knew?

Anyway, enough ranting for one night, my interest is Luca Maori requested charges placed on Rudy for defamation per Franks Perugia Shock, at the end of the closing. Maybe this will be supported and proceeded with. Hopefully, Rudy will get six, or more, years added. I check in to see if this has happened yet, to see if charges against Rudy have been filed.

I think Rudy will be given more time in prison, just a hunch.

 

[Antony]

Raff said enough when he didn't comment on Amanda's story about Patrick, because he knew Patrick wasn't evolved but he also knew the story was correct, just wrong name, Then when Rudy is apprehended and Raff's dad is so happy, Raff is not, and for good reason.

No, Raff went into the house, Amanda stayed out, Raff confronted Rudy, they spoke, and Raff ran away with Amanda to the park. Rudy killed Meredith all by himself. I doubt Raff even got far enough into the house to even know what stare Meredith was in. They should have called the cops right then and there, and none of this mess would have happened to them, but they didn't.

Sherlock, when there are 2 opposing positions in a debate, you aren't likely to arrive at the truth by adopting a compromise position somewhere in between. The reality is that if one side is wrong, then it is likely to be 100% wrong.

In this case, it's clear from objective view, endorsed by Judge Hellmann's court, that the prosecution case was never supported by evidence. Amanda and Raff were acquitted because he ruled that there was no evidence supporting the accusations, not because there was insufficient evidence. It's the innocence side that is supported by evidence, including evidence of widescale misconduct on the part of the police and prosecution.

It's tempting to go for a position in the middle when you're not sure about something, but the trouble with your "middle" position is that it's just as unsupported by evidence as the prosecution case.

 

[snook1]

Would this suggest that the two arguing, and the terrible scream that was supposed to have been heard, was Knox and Sollecito, in the shock of discovery, and realizing they had touched a crime scene?

I always thought that if (a big IF) Amanda and Raffaele were involved, then it must have been just the way it was described in the post that you're quoting.

They're clearly innocent of the murder, there's no doubt about it. I think that they also had no idea what happened with Meredith, however one can argue that there were signs that they in fact knew Meredith was killed.

The scenario that they stumbled upon the murder scene after Rudy left and maybe touched something (or not), freaked out, didn't call the police right away (maybe due to being afraid that they gonna find out they smoked or that simply they will suspect their involvement - what eventually happened), is the scenario that some argue was exactly what happened there during that night.

 

[snook1]

Look at this, ridiculous, quote that I just found on TJMK.

Lawyers posting on PMF and TJMK and some others who don’t but talk with us are suspecting that Judge Hellman, in his blunt refusal to allow the prosecution any DNA re-testing, in his jury briefing, in his garbled announcement of the appeal verdict, and in his contradictory comments in the next several days, may have made enough legal mistakes for a 75% probability that the Supreme Court will insist on a major revisiting of the case or even a complete new appeal trial.

Hellmann's comments were taken out of context and not translated correctly. That's a first.

 

[Rolfe]

I will try to explain, although I probably do not fit your description of a poster you wish to hear from.

Your opinion that "no one believing in innocense (sp) is permitted to post there" is an inaccurate, unjustified, overly simplistic generalization.

Most people have been banned from PMF because they cannot follow Rules, and/or specific instructions from Administrators. (sound familiar ?)

The Administrators at PMF specifically try to minimize posters who typically come to the Board:
1) under the guise of "seeking information to help them decide about guilt"
2) who then deceitfully deliberately resurrect talking point, simpleton arguments that have been completely and exhaustively examined and discarded in the past.
3) after many new rebuttals, the soon to be banned poster continues circular arguing, with plentiful pedantic parsing, numerous nit picking off topic justifications, etcccc. (sound familiar?)

The Administrator:
1) wishes to avoid 70,000+ circular arguments that still cannot decide whether a cartwheel was only a yoga stretch (sound familiar ?)
2) shows how the resurrected talking point topic from the 'new' poster is little more than an unwelcome disruption of the normal flow of the Forum.
3) suggests that the poster either start a new topic or take a break from posting about the well beaten redundant rubbish talking points.
This is very similar to warnings and probation here (sound familiar?)

When, *and only when*, the poster refuses to comply with the Rules, and Administrator specific warnings that are similar to a Mod Box and/or a yellow flag warnings here, the poster gets suspended and/or banned. (sound familiar ?)

Recently, this type of problematic poster became so rampant that the Administrators took action to prevent having to later ban such undesirable deceitful 'disrupters' by preventing registrations after investigations.

Appologies (sp) to those who have seen this explanatory argument scores of times .

I've read a lot there, though I never joined. (They accused me of being various pro-innocence posters there, such as niktendo, although I wasn't. There was a poster called stint7 or something like that who was quite astonishingly rude about me apparently on the grounds that I'm a veterinary surgeon, thus all I can do is clip dogs' toenails. This would be at the same time as you were sending me very touching and much appreciated messages of sympathy by PM here, about my mother's death - maybe you recall?)

Anyway, I've read enough to see that what you say there isn't true. There are two basic ways someone who isn't convinced about guilt comes into the forum. One is openly, maybe using a JREF screen name, as Rose did. In that case, the cry of "troll" is raised immediately, with called for banning from people who say they're offended and disgusted even having to read such posts. The accusation is that the person is only there to "disrupt".

So people try it the other way. They try to go in with questions, not making their pro-innocence viewpoint clear at the start. The chances are that even then the nature of their questions is rumbled, and the above happens. It's exactly the same as when you go on a homoeopathy forum and ask how they know that one supplier supplies better-quality products than another, or how they know that airport x-ray screening inactivates remedies. They've met these questions before, they know they can't answer them and they're deadly, so they ban anyone asking them.

If such a poster is clever enough not to be rumbled by the nature of their initial questions, they may survive a little longer. But sooner or later they ask an awkward question or two. The regulars realise they are not toeing the party line, and calls to ban the offensive, disruptive troll start again. Added to that is the accusation that the person was concealing their true opinion, and so was being dishonest. Breathtakingly, someone usually claims that if only they'd been open about their opinions from the start, they'd have been welcomed with open arms. Orly?

I've seen it multiple times in the period I've been reading that site. It's the behaviour of people who have their minds made up and do not want to be confused with either facts or logic. It's the behaviour of people who are incapable of sustaining a rational argument for their point of view, and know it. It's exactly analogous the the homoeopathy forums, I'm afraid.

As for "don't want to re-hash the same arguments", that's baloney. I'm happy to re-hash the same arguments on Lockerbie, for example, as often as any newbie cares to ask them. Keeps me familiar with the logic and the evidence, and occasionally the newbie brings in a bit more relevant evidence and everyone's understanding is enhanced. Closing off debate is the act of a group who can't defend their position and so choose not to.

Rolfe.

 

[lionking]

I would just like for someone from .net or .org that posts here to explain something to me. Why is it that anyone believing in guilt is free to post here, but no one believing in innocense is permitted to post there. I think if their home site will not allow both sides of the argument there, then they should not come here to post . Just my opinion.

I've been lurking for a while. Is this a serious post? This thread has long been a cheersquad for AK, and victory is yours. Good show. But does anyone agree with this ridiculous contention that contrary views should not be allowed here?

 

[Rolfe]

No. I think Poppy was rather suggesting that it is hypocritical for people to come to post here when they will not tolerate opposing views on their sites, rather than suggsting they should not be allowed to come here, however.

I would take issue with your "cheersquad for AK" jibe though. It's been noted in other discussions that the people who are on the right side of the argument start to sound like a choir all singing from the same sheet music, after a bit. This isn't because they are a cheersquad or anything like that, but because they're right.

You have complained about "sore winners" in the past. I think you should consider the position of the sore loser, who feels aggrieved even at hearing the outcome being discussed.

Rolfe.