Continuation Part 3 - Discussion of the Amanda Knox case

[Osterwelle]

Obviously, we disagree on what is contained in Knox's statements. You think they are incriminating, and I don't (I don't want to speak for others, but it is clear that many here agree with me).

Yep, count me in.

My larger question is -- in what world does it make sense that Knox killed Meredith?

There wasn't even a reason for her to even go to the cottage that night, because a) she had someone to shag who had his own appartment and b) she didn't even knew anyone would be home at the cottage.

Can you imagine that conversation with Raffaele right after his appointment was cancelled?
"Honey, we had sex for a couple of times now, but I'm already bored so we need to spice things up a bit. Why don't we pop in our cottage and see if someone's there to have threesome with? They've all gone out, but Meredith is maybe coming home early from her friends. Oh, and hand me one of those big kitchen knives, will you? Just in case the british chick plays hard to get."

People don't kill other people, especially people who are nice and are friends, for no reason. Unless they are mentally ill.

I have to agree with the guilter fraction that altough there's no motive or explanation that makes even remotely sense, it is still theoretically possible that AK and RS were actively involved in the murder. You can't look into peoples heads and a murder like could happen.
However, as it was stated already in these threads: Exceptional stories require exceptional proof. And the evidence here is paper thin and full of holes.
In a proper lawsuit, this should never lead to conviction even if Amanda were the "Whore of Seattle" with a criminal record of violence and fornication...

-
Osterwelle

 

[RoseMontague]

I realize this is google-translated Italian, but this is some of the worst I've seen, I can barely make sense of it at all. However what I think I've been able to decipher suggests...well...someone explain this to me:



Do I have this right? They taped the jailhouse conversations between Sabrina and Michele and they think they have found 'evidence' of their complicity in lines like 'where did we go wrong?' That and some meaning in some secret language they have an 'etymological' reference for?!

Reading through the whole thing as best I could, I got the impression they thought they should stay imprisoned because they hadn't cracked yet and if they got out they might interfere with the investigation by appearing innocent!

Yep.

My bad on the Google translation being worse than normal. It is an image file and I spent 10 minutes converting it to a txt file for translation rather than several hours with a direct but still crappy OCR. Not sure if the standard OCR version would have been much better.

 

[smkovalinksy]

Except I don't believe that any but a precious few over there are actually intelligent. And none who come here.

And those who are "intelligent" demonstrate zero competence with their use of what they possess, or, worse are despicably mendacious. Such as "Michael," who was known to go around spamming the web with presumably knowing lies that Rudy Guede had no criminal history, and that his foster parents had never abandoned him...

So, in general, I have no problem with LondonJohn's blanket assessment of "idiots." Nor do I have any problem with such idiots assessing us as deficient. Instead I consider the source. Do you recall the PMF clown who, literally in the waning hours preceding the appeal verdict, opined that those who believe in innocence all possess a sub-100 IQ?

As RandyN would say, member dat?

While I appreciate the civility of some here, I myself don't see much percentage in standing on ceremony in my assessment of such cretins. In a real-life game of high stakes, they have richly earned their portion of contempt.

I cannot really argue with you on any of this.

 

[RoseMontague]

in difesa della difesa

Article here about the defense lawyers strike:

http://translate.google.com/transla...kQFjAE&usg=AFQjCNEb7e7qUul3JYDjFuwus44ncaOaXw

From the trend, become customary to delay the entry in the register of suspects of people already affected by the investigation to hear them without the assistance of counsel, the breach of confidentiality of conversations between client and lawyer are heard and, worse, reported in acts of investigation, the welter of facts and behaviors that undermine the integrity of the right of defense is to be multiplying at an alarming rate.

 

[Kaosium]

What Mignini quotes is a line, rather than a portion. A line where she says she did not lie, that means she claims that on the night of nov 5th she believed what she told was true, what she remembered (that she had witnessed Patrick coming to her house and kill Meredith while she was in the kitchen).
If you have more from p. 185, just quote it.

The only question to answer anyway is, if this series of claims by Knox can be considered credible or not.

From page 185 of "Murder in Italy:"

"So I guess now I'm supposed to do again what I've been doing since last Friday afternoon: recount what I know. In the last [illegible], I've been called a lot of things, a poor girl, a lier, a good girl, a prisoner. People have talked sweetly to me, yelled at me, hit me, offered me help, and asked a lot of questions. In this time I haven't known who to trust. Even in the dark I've feared even my own boyfriend just because I don't know what happened and I don't know who did this.

I only know I'm safe when I'm with the police or alone, although this is the only kind of safety I can feel for my body. Alone, and with the police, I fear my mind. Alone I imagine the horrors my friend must have gone through in her last moments.

I have to imagine what it must have felt like when she felt her blood flowing out of her. What must she have thought about. About her mom? Regret? Did she have time to come to any peace or did she only experience terror in the end? With the police I fear I would not remember something correctly, and the police would accuse me. I DID NOT KILL MY FRIEND. But I am very confused, because the police tell me that they know I was at my house when she was murdered, which I don't remember. They tell me a lot of things I don't remember. Here is what I do remember..."
​

(Emphasis and spelling retained from original)

Amanda's series of claims must be presented against the police's series of claims, and theirs are far less credible. They claimed it just popped out of her, right out of the blue, and that it 'matched facts we knew to be correct,' when of course it did nothing of the sort, unless they fed her that pig manure she finally spit back out. They then tried to pretend the 'gift note,' and this note excerpted from, both amounted to her 'changing her story' yet didn't cause them to change their insistence Patrick was the murderer, and wouldn't for almost two weeks despite Patrick's protestations, his lawyer claiming twenty alibis, and the Swiss professional they grilled for seven hours. At the same time Amanda is also telling her mother (and one with Curt Knox as well) in tapped conversations she wasn't there and couldn't know, and would celebrate in her diary when Patrick was released.

The evidence suggests Amanda never wanted Patrick arrested, recanted in full everything she'd said the day before, and was happy when he was released. The evidence also suggests the police lied about how those statements came to be and that she never recanted. They bullied those signatures out of Amanda and then when it came time to admit to the mistake they instead decided to 'use' it as proof of her guilt, so they could solemnly intone 'she accused an innocent man!'

 

[Bruce Fischer]

I found this to be a pretty interesting book. It talks about a grass roots effort that helped to free Amanda Knox and Raffaele Sollecito. You might want to check it out.

Edited by kmortis: 

Removed commercial link

 

[RoseMontague]

Amanda's series of claims must be presented against the police's series of claims, and theirs are far less credible. They claimed it just popped out of her, right out of the blue, and that it 'matched facts we knew to be correct,' when of course it did nothing of the sort, unless they fed her that pig manure she finally spit back out. They then tried to pretend the 'gift note,' and this note excerpted from, both amounted to her 'changing her story' yet didn't cause them to change their insistence Patrick was the murderer, and wouldn't for almost two weeks despite Patrick's protestations, his lawyer claiming twenty alibis, and the Swiss professional they grilled for seven hours. At the same time Amanda is also telling her mother (and one with Curt Knox as well) in tapped conversations she wasn't there and couldn't know, and would celebrate in her diary when Patrick was released.

The evidence suggests Amanda never wanted Patrick arrested, recanted in full everything she'd said the day before, and was happy when he was released. The evidence also suggests the police lied about how those statements came to be and that she never recanted. They bullied those signatures out of Amanda and then when it came time to admit to the mistake they instead decided to 'use' it as proof of her guilt, so they could solemnly intone 'she accused an innocent man!'

And the cops get medals and awards from the mayor for their railroading efforts. Perugia is proud of these people. There is no way they are ever going to back down from the lies. They have allowed themselves to be made fools.

 

[smkovalinksy]

I found this to be a pretty interesting book. It talks about a grass roots effort that helped to free Amanda Knox and Raffaele Sollecito. You might want to check it out.

Edited by kmortis: 

Removed commercial link

Wow, good work. I will have to get it, and maybe review it.

 

[Grinder]

Why in the world would Knox kill Meredith?

What line of reasoning makes sense here? The prosecution abandoned every theory they came up with, because none of them made sense. We had:

1) Satanic ritual
2) Trying to force Meredith to participate in an orgy (for some unknown reason -- Knox and Sollecito had never participated in an orgy themselves)
3) Knox was angry at Meredith because Meredith was annoyed at Knox not cleaning the flat (really??? come on, no logical person can believe this)

Doug I must respectfully disagree. I never agreed with it when the FOA pushed it from the beginning or when anybody said it for the last four years.

Although I have been leaning towards innocence most of those four years, sometimes more sometimes less, the idea that it couldn't happen because the dynamics of the murder weren't fully understood doesn't make sense.

Perhaps it is the simple lone wolf but that never really has felt complete to me. I've said here lately that I always wondered about Kokomani being there, being hooked in with Albanian dealers, Rudy being involved in at least some crime etc.

But I could imagine the kids somehow being crazy enough for 15 minute to kill with no motive. I don't think so, but possible and not the end all for proving innocence.

I would add that the early FOA pitch which included your theory is what ignited some of the PG intensity.

IMO

 

[Chris_Halkides]

She said that she cannot know

What Mignini quotes is a line, rather than a portion. A line where she says she did not lie, that means she claims that on the night of nov 5th she believed what she told was true, what she remembered (that she had witnessed Patrick coming to her house and kill Meredith while she was in the kitchen).
If you have more from p. 185, just quote it.

The only question to answer anyway is, if this series of claims by Knox can be considered credible or not.

Machiavelli,

Do you now believe that the second memoriale exists? That would be progress. However, your description of what PM Mignini quoted is inclomplete.

right before the end of audio tape #3 at PMF dot net:

"GM: I see. All right. I take note of what you're saying. Now, let's talk about your memorandum from the 7th, still written in total autonomy, without anyone around you. You wrote: 'I didn't lie when I said that I thought the murderer was Patrick. At that moment I was very stressed and I really did think that it was Patrick.' Then you add 'But now I know that I can't know who the murderer is, because I remember that I didn't go home.' Can you explain these concept to me?"
highlighting mine

I will deal with p. 185 later.
EDT
I see that Kaosium has included the quote from page 185 in Murder in Italy. Thanks.

 

[smkovalinksy]

Doug I must respectfully disagree. I never agreed with it when the FOA pushed it from the beginning or when anybody said it for the last four years.

Although I have been leaning towards innocence most of those four years, sometimes more sometimes less, the idea that it couldn't happen because the dynamics of the murder weren't fully understood doesn't make sense.

Perhaps it is the simple lone wolf but that never really has felt complete to me. I've said here lately that I always wondered about Kokomani being there, being hooked in with Albanian dealers, Rudy being involved in at least some crime etc.

But I could imagine the kids somehow being crazy enough for 15 minute to kill with no motive. I don't think so, but possible and not the end all for proving innocence.

I would add that the early FOA pitch which included your theory is what ignited some of the PG intensity.

IMO

I would agree. It does in fact rightfully feed guilter scorn to presume it could not have happened without a crystal-clear motive. This is why pmf goes into great areas of reflection about Amanda's psychological state being already borderline and fragile.

All it would take is drug use, or even premenstrual tension, to escalate things rapidly. There was a 15 year old girl here in New Jersey who had been an honor student, and a cheerleader, and was a blue eyed blonde and looked like an angel. She knifed her mother and brother to death during a simple fight. I reported on the case for a local newspaper. (Brenda Wiley case, Hunterdon County,1990s).

The important thing is that the evidence did not support Knox and Sollecito's involvement. This is why the convictions were overturned.

 

[raz0rama]

I found this to be a pretty interesting book. It talks about a grass roots effort that helped to free Amanda Knox and Raffaele Sollecito. You might want to check it out.

[edt=kmortis]Removed commercial link[/edit]

That little bit of innocent self-promotion made me smile. Thanks!

And thanks for taking the time to attempt to right a wrong in the world. The world needs more people like you.

 

[Diocletus]

From page 185 of "Murder in Italy:"

"So I guess now I'm supposed to do again what I've been doing since last Friday afternoon: recount what I know.​

This sounds like someone has given her pen and paper and is suggesting to her that she should write a statement. Spontaneously, of course . . . and then you can talk to a lawyer.

What a joke.​

 

[RoseMontague]

I would agree. It does in fact rightfully feed guilter scorn to presume it could not have happened without a crystal-clear motive. This is why pmf goes into great areas of reflection about Amanda's psychological state being already borderline and fragile.

All it would take is drug use, or even premenstrual tension, to escalate things rapidly. There was a 15 year old girl here in New Jersey who had been an honor student, and a cheerleader, and was a blue eyed blonde and looked like an angel. She knifed her mother and brother to death during a simple fight. I reported on the case for a local newspaper. (Brenda Wiley case, Hunterdon County,1990s).

The important thing is that the evidence did not support Knox and Sollecito's involvement. This is why the convictions were overturned.

I agree as well. Talking in absolute terms is what turned me off about Steve Moore's early articles. I ran into the same mindset in the Duke case. Many claimed it was impossible that these Lacrosse players could do such a thing as what they were accused of. It was the evidence that showed them to be innocent, not the unusual nature of the crime.

There is a difference between it being extremely unlikely and impossible.

 

[RoseMontague]

This sounds like someone has given her pen and paper and is suggesting to her that she should write a statement. Spontaneously, of course . . . and then you can talk to a lawyer.

What a joke.

Good catch. It is pretty clear that they were not satisfied with her vague and confused statements, lacking details and information only someone involved would know. That's why they continued to question her after the 1:45AM statement and got something with at least a thud and a scream. They knew what they had was not convincing, yet they went with it anyway.

I have to say that Amanda lacked the common sense to understand at some earlier point it was to her benefit not to say or write anything else. Still cooperating even after her betrayal by the cops.

 

[smkovalinksy]

I agree as well. Talking in absolute terms is what turned me off about Steve Moore's early articles. I ran into the same mindset in the Duke case. Many claimed it was impossible that these Lacrosse players could do such a thing as what they were accused of. It was the evidence that showed them to be innocent, not the unusual nature of the crime.

There is a difference between it being extremely unlikely and impossible.

Right. It is highly unlikely that Knox would be involved with such a crime, but not impossible. This is why the courts of law should be impartial and carefully examine all evidence and all input. This case was made worse by the witch hunt mentality of the prosecution and police, and their unscrupulous, dishonest, and aggressive manner in handling Knox.

Same with the Duke case: Of course these players were capable of such a crime, but were they truly in any way culpable, and why was there a rush to judgment??

 

[Grinder]

Right. It is highly unlikely that Knox would be involved with such a crime, but not impossible. This is why the courts of law should be impartial and carefully examine all evidence and all input. This case was made worse by the witch hunt mentality of the prosecution and police, and their unscrupulous, dishonest, and aggressive manner in handling Knox.

Same with the Duke case: Of course these players were capable of such a crime, but were they truly in any way culpable, and why was there a rush to judgment??

Very curious why you would think they were capable of the crime in any way more that anybody would be capable of the alleged crime?

I don't think that Knox was a person any more "highly unlikely" than the most everybody in the world. One could argue that 99.97% of all people are "highly unlikely" to commit murder.

 

[Kaosium]

And the cops get medals and awards from the mayor for their railroading efforts. Perugia is proud of these people. There is no way they are ever going to back down from the lies. They have allowed themselves to be made fools.

"Now all the criminals in their coats and their ties
Are free to drink martinis and watch the sun rise..."

I agree, and they'll never admit to it of their own free will, why would they? I had this nasty feeling the whole time that Amanda would have to take the fall for the interrogation, the absolute inability of the media to understand what happened to her and Raffaele, or at least their unwillingness to report on it (perhaps for obvious reasons) was infuriating.

I personally hope these study abroad programs keep this in mind when selecting potential destinations for their students. The Hellmann Court might well have released her and acquitted her on the murder and related charges, but they didn't have the courage to rebuke the police in Perugia who have so far gotten off scot-free and managed to scapegoat Amanda for everything.

Thus what is to stop them from doing it again? There's no license like free reign...

 

[Mary_H]

It is a tad embarrassing to be making a point about a murder investigation and misspelling "homocide". If the roles were reversed, I think I would have been far more snarky than P.Q. managed.

Please note to all with the power to ban me, 'twasn't me who called P.Q. a liar! I'd be hard pressed to say that.

If Mary_H gets banned for it, though, I will have to amend my favourtie statement of exasperation to include only Jesus and Joseph.

I can't believe I'm using emoticons. That banning has really shaken me!

You're a bad bad man Bill Williams, it's a good thing PQ put a stop to you when he did!

I am of a mind to start using Jesus, Bill and Joseph as one of my "favourtie" statements of exasperation.

 

[smkovalinksy]

Very curious why you would think they were capable of the crime in any way more that anybody would be capable of the alleged crime?

I don't think that Knox was a person any more "highly unlikely" than the most everybody in the world. One could argue that 99.97% of all people are "highly unlikely" to commit murder.

I suppose I am going on the Jungian theory that we all of us have a dark or "shadow" side, and hence are capable of committing crimes under certain circumstances. I did not mean to imply that because these were males or athletes that it follows that of course they were capable. I suppose I mean, that if you accuse me of plotting to kill you, this is not completely impossible, but you need to show evidence, motive, etc. I will admit that if I were the Duke players OR Amanda Knox, I would resent and be horrified by such accusations.