Continuation Part 4: Discussion of the Amanda Knox/Raffaele Sollecito case

[Grinder]

Please, please do not tell me that the only source of information is what you've read in the papers or on-line. If this is the case, how on earth can one make such proclamations simply because of a news report, or seeing a picture?

Please show peer-reviewed research that makes that possible?

To be fair you use Dempsey as if she's the final authority. Dempsey is one of the very few points that I agree with the PGP on. Her "reporting" was always close to advocacy if not advocacy and she had very little in the way of access except through the Knox family. She isn't fluent in Italian and spent limited time in Perugia.

I would suggest that you read through her posts and perhaps some of the contemporaneous PG site postings. They may be unable to see the big picture but they did make valid critics along the way.

Filomena by accounts at the time was allowed to take her computer from her room. She didn't seek in after the cottage had been sealed. The police had had her go into her room to check for anything missing. I doubt that most all burglary scenes aren't "compromised" by the victims and the responding police.

 

[Bob001]

A recap?

I am having trouble following this continuing thread. Amanda Knox has been acquitted and sent home by the appeals court, which thoroughly discredited the tiny shreds of evidence against her. Could someone summarize whatever issues remain in dispute? Does anyone continue to imagine that a spacey 20-year-old coed and her naive boyfriend participated in a brutal, senseless murder?

 

[Grinder]

The alibi would have collapsed anyway, as Raffaele was not working on his computer, did not receive the late night call from his father, and it took him years to say (and even then very vaguely and cautiously) that Amanda was always with him that night.

He affirmed the alibi at his first court hearing. The basic alibi of being at his house was never refuted even with Curatolo because he was no credible. It's pretty clear that the prosecution knew they needed to break their alibi because that's why they pulled in all the whack-job witnesses.

Confusing by a day when a call came in under these circumstances is hardly enough to undo an alibi.

 

[Dan O.]

Well, Amanda did not mention the name of Rudy to the police before her arrest, that is sure, because the police learnt of Rudy from Bonassi (the plantation master downstairs)

And after her arrest she availed herself of the right to silence.

When do you think she spoke about Rudy to the police?

From the Micheli Report we get:

BS had been heard three times during the preliminary investigation, between 2 and 4 November: only the third occasion, as already mentioned, had reported that his house (downstairs at Via della Pergola 7, which he shared with the villagers, S., and M. L.) was frequented by a guy nicknamed "the Baron" of South African origin, recalling that he was in the apartment with his friends one evening when the test was returned. B. claimed to have noticed that the "Baron" was very drunk, so that soon after he had slept on the toilet: he had added that the boy in question "had a physical attraction for A..
​

No mention of "Rudy" there.

But in the next paragraph:

Testified in the hearing, the witness recalled that he had already glimpsed the G. at the basketball court, first recounted the episode, then position it in the house the evening of the presence of R. about a week before the murder, stating that occasion - unless I'm mistaken - there were also A., M., M. and the previously reported C. (Later in the narrative, but reference B. GS). However, correcting the earlier version at the point where he reported having found the group back into the house but in reality he was sleeping and was awakened by the noise of their return from the other, then looked out the living room.​

Now he is talking about G (presumably Guede). When is this hearing? The context shift and the details sought about G indicates it is not a continuation from the 4th.

A few paragraphs later we get:

B., formerly called in by PG on 11 December 2007, ie a few days after the return of G. from Germany, claimed to know the G. some years, avendoci often played basketball. On that occasion, however, stated he had never shared the way we do, to be R. a habitual liar accustomed to consume alcohol and drugs, and to annoy the girls harassed in public and trying to kiss them.​

Is this a new hearing or more details from the last? It's been several days since Rudy had been identified so it is possible that Stefano had also been called in for a hearing before the 11th.

Amanda did not speak of "Rudy" before his arrest because as she said in her testimony, she did not know his name. She had however spoken to the police several times about the boys that visited. He she mentioned the party downstairs? It's possible since these were boys that met Meredith but we don't know because we don't have those early police statements.

 

[anglolawyer]

I am having trouble following this continuing thread. Amanda Knox has been acquitted and sent home by the appeals court, which thoroughly discredited the tiny shreds of evidence against her. Could someone summarize whatever issues remain in dispute? Does anyone continue to imagine that a spacey 20-year-old coed and her naive boyfriend participated in a brutal, senseless murder?

Yes, people do continue to imagine that but without being able to explain why in a coherent and rational manner. Issues do remain, including, hopefully a successful appeal against conviction and a reckoning with the Perugia authorities and the libellers.

 

[bolint]

She didn't know Rudy's name, as it seems very few people did ( she explained this in her final speech to the appeal court ). He was just "like many people around, a face".

In this context by "naming" I mean any identification of a specific person, not restricted to telling his name.

 

[bolint]

Is this just a coffee-party claim, something you'd say to a friend because you saw a picture and have an opinion? Or is it based on something solid?

You may quote the source where she named Rudy. If there is no such evidence I continue to believe that she did not name him before he was caught.

real people suffered unjustly in jail as a result?

You mean Lumumba?

 

[Matthew Best]

When I asked it at the time of the appeal sentencing I was sternly rebuked here how they did not have time to hug each other at the "moment of truth".

Well, months have passed since that time and recently we have learned from the horse's mouth (Raffaele) that they have never communicated since then, neither by phone, nor by email, nor by anything.

Not a single contact.

And this tells us what, exactly?

 

[bolint]

Maybe you could explain what you mean by 'taboo'. A taboo as I understand it is something which is socially prohibited. That doesn't apply here as Amanda was not a member of a society in which Rudy's name could not be mentioned (or maybe you're saying she was). Assuming no such society of Rudy non-namers existed, whence came this taboo?

Well, this is clearly not Polynesian sociology.
I meant a prohibition imposed by herself not by some society.
She could not implicate Rudy for trivial reasons.

 

[Dougm]

When I asked it at the time of the appeal sentencing I was sternly rebuked here how they did not have time to hug each other at the "moment of truth".

Well, months have passed since that time and recently we have learned from the horse's mouth (Raffaele) that they have never communicated since then, neither by phone, nor by email, nor by anything.

Not a single contact.

I have read that there has actually been quite a bit of contact, although it is hard to tell how reliable the sources are. It has been said that they have communicated via Skype, and also I read somewhere that Raffaele said they were together when they were transported from the court to the jail, because he said she was crying, and he asked her why, because she was now free. This was from some article somewhere, which I don't have time to look up right now, so I can't say the source is valid.

I also am not quite sure why this matters. They dated for a total of less than two weeks, then for 4 years only saw each other across the courtroom. Two weeks is not a lifelong relationship, and after acquittal they are whisked off to different countries to live. Is there some reason they should be talking all the time? Seems if it was me, I would want to move on with my life. If there was some big conspiracy between the two to make sure neither spilled the beans, don't you think they would be talking more?

 

[bolint]

Please! She could have listed off Rudy along everyone else that she had met downstairs. Why did they clean their evidence and not Rudy's if they didn't intend for him to be caught? Why leave the poop in the toilet, the shoe prints (they would have seen them when using the desk lamp, right?)and everything else if they didn't intend to point the police in that direction? They could have named him while being taped in the waiting room.

I'm not sure if Raffaele knew about Rudy at all.
I think she told him a fake story.

As an aside, interesting they were recorded in a waiting room but not in the interrogation room.

Clearly, the police did not play fair. But no matter what they did I don't base my judgment on their claims.
I base it on objective facts like the claimed but missing computer activity, their differing versions of how they spent the night, the never even slightly explained early morning computer activity, etc.

It all comes from the pair, not from the police.

The "panic" reaction would be to name the person that was at the cottage when the murder took place.

Yes, like naming Lumumba. That was exactly the panic reaction I talked about. Not naming Rudy is not a panic reaction.

She didn't mention Rudy because she barely knew him and didn't have anything to do with a clean-up that never happened.

Some clean-up did happen, whoever did it.
I don't buy the story of Rudy going to the bathroom and washing his feet and trousers without leaving prints.

If Shaky had done it would Sophie be in trouble because she named him? No.

Yes. If she had named him


If Amanda had named Rudy as a downstairs visitor, how would that be suspicious?[/QUOTE]



If any PGP can explain why the kids would have left Rudy's evidence and yet not lead the police to him, please explain without the word panic. While you're at it explain why they didn't make up an alibi that they could both stick to? Why is the fact that the English girls had their dinner starting from 5:30 to 6:30 not suspicious?[/QUOTE]

 

[smkovalinksy]

When I asked it at the time of the appeal sentencing I was sternly rebuked here how they did not have time to hug each other at the "moment of truth".

Well, months have passed since that time and recently we have learned from the horse's mouth (Raffaele) that they have never communicated since then, neither by phone, nor by email, nor by anything.

Not a single contact.

And this would point toward what? That they are estranged from each other, and did not maintain a warm relationship through 4 years of prison? I know many PG people who were complaining when they thought they were still in close contact and planning a holiday get together.Either way, whether they remained close or became estranged, it is deemed highly suspicious and quite significant.

 

[Bill Williams]

To be fair you use Dempsey as if she's the final authority. Dempsey is one of the very few points that I agree with the PGP on. Her "reporting" was always close to advocacy if not advocacy and she had very little in the way of access except through the Knox family. She isn't fluent in Italian and spent limited time in Perugia.

I would suggest that you read through her posts and perhaps some of the contemporaneous PG site postings. They may be unable to see the big picture but they did make valid critics along the way.

Filomena by accounts at the time was allowed to take her computer from her room. She didn't seek in after the cottage had been sealed. The police had had her go into her room to check for anything missing. I doubt that most all burglary scenes aren't "compromised" by the victims and the responding police.

I don't use Dempsey as THE final authority, I use her book as MY authority, and since I am only a schmuck with a keyboard and internet access, my finding of Dempsey as MY authority should not be confused with Dempsey being THE authority.

I also agree that Dempsey eventually became very biased, meaning that she became convinced that the prosecution case was bollocks. I mean, what was she to do? Simply ignore that she thought the prosecution case as bollocks? I am similarly biased.

Which also means that if someone wants to offer an alternate position with their goal to get me to change my mind there are about 10 ussyes they'll have to address, beginning with the alleged clean-up, and the complete do-ability of the break-in. This also means that if Knox and Sollecito were to themselves confess to the crime, I wouldn't believe them either. They'd still have to deal with those questions..... but, gee, it would be unlikely for someone to confess, wouldn't it, unless they were slapped around by police a bit.

I mean, Barbie Nadeau claims to have written an "unbiased, middle of the road, balanced," account of the brutal Kercher murder, calling it Angel Face, Student Killer. Nadeau thinks being balanced is calling Knox a killer.

Towards the verdict at appeal, I'm not sure anyone really did not take one side or another. There's no sense in faking that one is neutral when one really does have a strong opinion.

I just find Dempsey's research and accounting for the crime to be far better than I coud ever imagine and far, far more convincing than Nadeau.

I'm just a schmuck with a keyboard.

 

[Chris_Halkides]

slander

I am having trouble following this continuing thread. Amanda Knox has been acquitted and sent home by the appeals court, which thoroughly discredited the tiny shreds of evidence against her. Could someone summarize whatever issues remain in dispute? Does anyone continue to imagine that a spacey 20-year-old coed and her naive boyfriend participated in a brutal, senseless murder?

Bob001,
There are additional trials, such as her parents' being tried for slander. If you read through the comments section there, it is clear that there are a number of benighted souls who still do believe just that.

 

[Katody Matrass]

Just in:
Amanda Knox filed appeal of the slander conviction

Go girl!

 

[Dougm]

I'll probably be the 5th person to post this once it gets through moderation, but Amanda is appealing the slander conviction.

http://abcnews.go.com/US/amanda-knox-appeals-slander-conviction/story?id=15523721

 

[Grinder]

Elsewhere I read from the brilliant minds of PG that the kids left Rudy's evidence because they didn't think the police could use DNA, fingerprints and show prints to ID Rudy. Of course, this doesn't explain why they would leave his evidence while cleaning their own, particularly since as a downstairs visitor that had met Meredith he certainly would be named by one of the boys as he, in fact, was.

The newbie PGP don't remember that the reason given for the kids to use the Rudy big rock break-in technique was that they had been told by Rudy about it or they had read it in a local paper. It would also make them more suspicious if they didn't name him.

Clearly, he would be caught from the evidence they left. So why not nudge the police in that direction?

There was no clean-up of all but Rudy's evidence and the PGP would help themselves by admitting that.

 

[Dougm]

Elsewhere I read from the brilliant minds of PG that the kids left Rudy's evidence because they didn't think the police could use DNA, fingerprints and show prints to ID Rudy. Of course, this doesn't explain why they would leave his evidence while cleaning their own, particularly since as a downstairs visitor that had met Meredith he certainly would be named by one of the boys as he, in fact, was.

The newbie PGP don't remember that the reason given for the kids to use the Rudy big rock break-in technique was that they had been told by Rudy about it or they had read it in a local paper. It would also make them more suspicious if they didn't name him.

Clearly, he would be caught from the evidence they left. So why not nudge the police in that direction?

There was no clean-up of all but Rudy's evidence and the PGP would help themselves by admitting that.

I read that also, and I can't help but being amazed at the lack of logic. The PGP point here is that Amanda would not have named Rudy because she could not have known that his fingerprints and/or DNA would be in the police database, so she would not have thought they could match him up.

Ehem ....

OK now. Anyone that is over the age about about 10 knows that the police have long solved crimes using evidence left by people at the scene, and not because all of these people have their fingerprints already in the database. When they find fingerprints, DNA, etc., they then bring people in for questioning, take their prints, and check them against the evidence. At least this is what competent police do that have not already decided who the guilty parties are before collecting evidence.

The proper sequence would have been:

1) Collect evidence
2) Take prints from and question everybody that knew Meredith
3) When these don't match, broaden the net
4) Ask around about others, find out that no one has seen Guede for awhile and he left town. Track him down for questioning, and when you find him, take his prints, etc. (repeat with others that could be suspected)
5) Bingo!!

The police did this with Amanda and Raffaele, they were not in the database. Why Knox would not have named Rudy, using the logic that she would not have known he was in the police database, makes no sense at all.

 

[Bill Williams]

You may quote the source where she named Rudy. If there is no such evidence I continue to believe that she did not name him before he was caught.

I believe there is a police tape of Curt telling Amanda that a guy named Rudy had been caight (c. 19 Nov 2007) and Amanda remembered him and called him a bastard for killing Meredith. I think that's how it goes. Someone can correct me if I am wrong.

Otherwise the, "she did not name him before he was caught," is actually because she'd never in a million years thought it was him - the police had told her it was Lumumba.

You mean Lumumba?

Yup, he's one of them who suffered unjustly in prison. I don't really want to repost ALL the discussion on this point, but if you're interested you might want to read back or go to Injustice in Perugia where it is covered as well.

The police brought Lumumba into this, not Knox. At worst, she "confirmed" their suspicions - the argument we've been having on this topic here, is "when did the police begin to suspect Lumumba?" Tha's what you'll read about if you desire to catch up on that point.

As for me, I have recently recanted from the belief that Knox is criminally liable for Lumumba's obviously unjust imprisoning. Again, I don't really want to repeat here all the reasons - I think what is key, though, is Mignini's CNN interview from May 2011, where he, himself, describes his own role in the 1:45 am to 5:45 am 6 Nov interrogation.

In brief, I think Mignini is lying about Knox making a "spontaneous" confession about Lumumba. It all has to do with his claim that he was acting "as if a notary".

It's a classic case of either he's lying or he's incompetent if he thinks he CAN act as a simple notary at an interrogation.

 

[Skind]

So,

Knox panicked and named Lumumba, but wasn't panicked enough to slip up and name the first name that came into her head - the guy she would have known was definetly there - Geude.

She was panicked enough to remain calm enough to think things through and name Lumumba in her calm panic. Makes sense to me.