Continuation Part 5: Discussion of the Amanda Knox/Raffaele Sollecito case

[Bill Williams]

Total recall?
When he could not recall if he was making love, if he was working on the computer1, if he was watching a film, if Amanda went out.
None of these requires superhuman memory.

Do you really believe that he did not remember any of these the following days?

----------------
1 while the mythical screensaver evidence (LOL) allegedly shows that he was working on the computer uncessantly all night long

Certainly! He was doing these same things on successive nights and was being put on the spot several days later about which was which. When I was a student, all my nights were the same too, with variations and whether I was at this or that pub with this or that collection of friends would certainly not be memorable a week later. Or rather he did remember and so did she but neither of them thought they had to preserve that memory and, being essentially unimportant, it faded. Amanda's account has the cops very briefly asking her what she did that night just once on 2nd Nov and then not being closely focused on it again until several days later, in the form of the cops, whom she trusted, telling her she was mistaken and they knew different.

You really need to study the effects of interrogation because you haven't reached first base with this case. The whole thing is about the methods used to extract their confessions (ruled unusable, remember). Study your own country's laws and ask why they exist in the first place.

What I do not get about this, is that people expect Raffaele and Amanda (and others at interrogation) to have perfect total recall, as if they had magical powers.

Please note - read up on the difference between a police interview (the gathering of information, the subject is relaxed, lots of breaks, etc. to faciliate recall) and interrogation (which is the process to get a suspect to confess). It is stunning that people interested in this willingly remain ignorant of this.

The inability to remember detail is the way confessions are elicited at interrogation, it is exactly the reason why the same question is asked again and again - the assumption is that the least inconsistency becomes the wedge by which a large fissure in the story can be opened, to force an eventual confession.

People - what happened to Raffaele, Amanda and Patrick were interrogations. Confession was the goal. This is NOT about eliciting information.

This is exactly the way both Andrea Vogt and Barbie Nadeau, almost six years years later, write their stories. Looking for that one seemingly innocent inconsistency (what did she see through the keyhole!).....

What Vogt and Nadeau miss is that the "pressure to get them to confess" tactic does not translate well into the "eliciting information" project of most journalists. The first thing you wish to ask someone when eliciting information is, "Did you do it?"

If they answer "no," in this case, you then, like Diane Sawyer ask, "Why all the weird behaviour?"

When they answer, "I was a stupid kid trying to act as if I was an adult and messed up, badly. I thought being cool about things meant I was an adult; I never once thought I could be suspected because I, myself, knew I was innocent....."

Well, then other investigative questions can be asked.

What boggles my mind is not so much the expectation that Raffaele and Amanda have superhuman powers of memory.....

...... it's the assumption that they actually DO have superhuman powers; up to the point where they can remove their own DNA from a scene while leaving Rudy's.

Everyone needs to take a step back here and ask what they're demanding of two students - even as Judge Massei said, two ordinary young people with no discernable psychopathology about them and no motive to have done this.

The interrogation was very typical of all interrogations, and in 99.99% of cases I for one am glad. 99.99% of cases probably have the perp in the room. But it is not superhuman to have flicked a switch to record the interrogation in this one, the very switch that was flicked to secretly tape Amanda and Raffaele in the days' previous, in that very room.

What boggles me - and I'm daffy this way - is that others do not see this as obvious.

 

[Rolfe]

And even though lawyers are supposed to know all about the fallibility of such testimony they still consider themselves so far above the common herd as to be able to distinguish reliable from unreliable eye witness evidence as in

Knox
Kish
Lockerbie (cue Rolfe)
George (1st appeal)
Another recent English one the name of which I forget but in which the only eye witness recanted at trial, there was no other evidence at all, the jury convicted and it was upheld on appeal!!!!!

I'll come in since you cued me. I think this is relevant so hopefully it won't be modded out.

The virtually unique thing about the Lockerbie verdict as far as a British court is concerned is that there was no jury, instead a judicial bench. The judges then submitted a written "Opinion", explaining their reasoning. Or what passed for reasoning anyway. Here's the paragraph about the eyewitness identification.

What did appear to us to be clear was that Mr Gauci applied his mind carefully to the problem of identification whenever he was shown photographs, and did not just pick someone out at random. Unlike many witnesses who express confidence in their identification when there is little justification for it, he was always careful to express any reservations he had and gave reasons why he thought that there was a resemblance. There are situations where a careful witness who will not commit himself beyond saying that there is a close resemblance can be regarded as more reliable and convincing in his identification than a witness who maintains that his identification is 100% certain. From his general demeanour and his approach to the difficult problem of identification, we formed the view that when he picked out the first accused at the identification parade and in Court, he was doing so not just because it was comparatively easy to do so but because he genuinely felt that he was correct in picking him out as having a close resemblance to the purchaser, and we did regard him as a careful witness who would not commit himself to an absolutely positive identification when a substantial period had elapsed. We accept of course that he never made what could be described as an absolutely positive identification, but having regard to the lapse of time it would have been surprising if he had been able to do so. We have also not overlooked the difficulties in relation to his description of height and age. We are nevertheless satisfied that his identification so far as it went of the first accused as the purchaser was reliable and should be treated as a highly important element in this case.

In fact the witness never identified the accused. On the contrary, his first words were "not the man I saw in my shop", but he then went on to say there was a resemblance, even a strong resemblance. He saw the terrorist for about half an hour, over ten years before the ID parade containing the accused.

The judges appeared to be saying, well, it would be impossible for him to be sure after such a long time, so of course he's saying he's not sure, so this proves he's sincere, so it was the same man.



"There are situations where a careful witness who will not commit himself beyond saying that there is a close resemblance can be regarded as more reliable and convincing in his identification than a witness who maintains that his identification is 100% certain." Er, run that past me again?

The other little wrinkle was that the witness originally sealed the fate of the accused by picking his passport photo out from a photospread. That happened well over two years after his brief sighting of the terrorist. However, that passport photo was an extraordinarily bad likeness, and this was pointed out by the defence. The man who was picked out of the ID parade in 1999 as "resembling" the terrorist looked nothing like the photo that was picked out of the photospread in 1991 as "resembling" the terrorist.

How did the judges deal with that? They explicitly said they had paid no attention to that argument and had not attempted to compare the various images.

The upshot of all this was three separate expert witness reports detailing a lot of controlled research showing the extreme unreliability of this sort of "identification" (and that's without taking into account a witness who has been told it's really important he gets this right so that the bad man doesn't get away with it, and by the way if you do get it right we'll give you and your brother $3 million).

And this isn't even a jury. To be honest, I don't think a jury would have accepted that identification.

Rolfe.

 

[acbytesla]

No, but clinging to their being turned on is the admission of the lack of a serious alibi. Like for example the computer use could have been, but was not.

(Rudy's bunch of lies is another long history, I don't have time to start a thread on it)

I've always thought this assertion that there was not a serious alibi to be absurd. It is doubtful that Raffaele would have even been included as a possible suspect if not for his connection to Amanda. The only way they could get Amanda was to include Raffaele in their theory. BTW Filomena has the exact same alibi as Amanda, they were spending the night at their boyfriends.

I was at my house all last night. If it wasn't for the computer log, there would be no way to prove my whereabouts.

I shake my head at the entire absurdity of anyone suspecting Amanda and Raffaele. And not because they are photogenic....but because they had been dating for all of one week. DON'T YOU THINK that if either of them was this crazy, the other would have turned on each after a year in Prison? Also, because of the massive support they have received from family and friends. Because ANYONE who has more than a passing acquaintance thinks very highly of them.

Now you might argue that Filomena knew Amanda well or the British virgins knew her well....but that really isn't the fact. Amanda had lived in the apartment all of 6 weeks, Amanda wasn't fluent in Italian and it is said that Amanda and Meredith tended to hang out more together when they were home and Laura and Filomena hung out with each other. Seems natural considering Amanda and Meredith were native "English" speakers and Laura and Filomena were Italians.

Also, isn't it interesting that not a single "other" prisoner in Amanda's prison...all of those other female prisoners, none of whom has come forward to say Amanda "confessed to them? Yet...countless of Rudy's fellow prisoners have come forward to admit he said he did it and also to say that he admitted that Amanda had nothing to do with it!!!

Then you add in the fact that Rudy was totally involved in the Murder given his Skype statement, his palm print on the wall, his shoe prints in Meredith's blood and then his DNA on Meredith's body, purse and in Meredith.

Then you add in there is no evidence of any call or text or email between Amanda/Raffaele and Rudy EVER, EVER, EVER.

Then you add in that Rudy in his Skype call says Amanda wasn't there.

NO HISTORY OF VIOLENCE, NO MOTIVE, and NO CONNECTION to the convicted murder.

SEEMS ABSOLUTELY A TOTAL OPEN AND SHUT CASE. and not the one the moronic Italian Police thought when they held their press conference...where they said "case closed" on Amanda, Raffaele and Patrick...not Rudy.

 

[Rolfe]

Yeah. It's that simple. I don't know why I still follow this thread, but there's a certain fascination to watching the prejudiced twist and turn in ridiculous attempts to deny the bleedin' obvious.

Rolfe.

 

[acbytesla]

Yeah. It's that simple. I don't know why I still follow this thread, but there's a certain fascination to watching the prejudiced twist and turn in ridiculous attempts to deny the bleedin' obvious.

Rolfe.

It does have a sort of compelling attraction. I think for me, is how can people be this tunnel minded and stupid? Every time I get into a debate with one of the guilters, they constantly focus on little tiny inconsistencies which are natural when you look at people's memories. Or they say Amanda and Raffaele keep changing their story which isn't true unless you count the one night they were harangued until the police got them to "agree" to a different version. Take out that one night and there is "no" changing story...and we will never really know what they said that night since it wasn't recorded. Never mind that the police were recording their conversations every where else they could.

There is a great article on Ground report by Pmause44
"Amanda Knox Case: What Are The Italian Authorities Hiding?"
http://www.groundreport.com/Politics/Amanda-Knox-Case-What-Are-The-Italian-Authorities-/2952865

Read it, it is very good, but definitely read the comments sections. It is so fascinating because it clearly shows the difference between those who argue that Amanda is clearly innocent and those who argue that Amanda is guilty. Those that say she is innocent provide incredible detail in their arguments with credible verifiable evidence. In contrast, the guilter has no detail or evidence ever. He just keeps repeating typical unsubstantiated claims such as "the mountain of evidence"...but when asked for some of it...he never answers. Or they kept changing their story...he is asked for some examples.. he never answers...but he claims that he always answers...but somehow never does throughout dozens of comments ..and not once during the thread does he actually come through.

 

[Alt+F4]

So why hasn't Raffaele cut a deal with the police?.

Good question. He is extremely wealthy and could have paid off all those corrupt cops and prosecutors. In fact, he is so rich the only reason why MK's family is perusing a civil case against him is to get his millions.

 

[anglolawyer]

Yeah. It's that simple. I don't know why I still follow this thread, but there's a certain fascination to watching the prejudiced twist and turn in ridiculous attempts to deny the bleedin' obvious.

Rolfe.

Yeah, the Lockerbie one takes some beating.

The English case I forgot was Sam Hallam btw.

 

[Rolfe]

Yeah, the Lockerbie one takes some beating.

The English case I forgot was Sam Hallam btw.

Well, at least the Lockerbie one is politically explicable. They announced to the world in 1991 that these two guys were "the Lockerbie bombers", and got the UN to slap punitive sanctions on Libya because they weren't handed over for trial. It was a complete any utter -up, but once it came to trial the prosecution had to press on with the case even though I think it's pretty clear they realised during the preparatory period that they had the wrong modus operandi.

This one is just bizarre. Of course they're painting themselves into a similar corner, gradually, but right at the beginning any sane investigation would simply have rethought and gone after Guede.

Rolfe.

 

[Alt+F4]

Well, at least the Lockerbie....

As usual with you, wrong thread. Perhaps you should do a "six degrees of Lockerbie" thread. My letter carrier tripped this morning and hurt his leg. How is this connected to Lockerbie?...ask Rolfe.

 

[Kaosium]

That machine on which he claimed to have worked was not destroyed. The hard disks were cloned in the presence of hos expert and he received a copy.
Unfortunately no trace of his activity was found on it even by his own experts.



Oh yes, the mythical screensaver evidence wich easily destroys Mignini, but somehow does not want to show up.

Oh, it showed up alright, they filed an addendum to the appeal, however at the outset of the appeal Hellmann denied the request to have experts look at the computer evidence--at the same time he granted the request to have the DNA appraised by independent experts and called Curatolo back in. We found out why that was recently when he was asked about the SC overturning the appeal, it wasn't necessary, that was the only evidence tying them to the crime the rest of the evidence was 'garbage' as I saw it put in one translation.


That was something many slobs like me could figure out for themselves just by reading the Massei Report and a cursory knowledge of a few different subjects or an interest in learning. The ones with legitimate credentialed authority in scientific subjects like the biological sciences, forensics or law like Chris Halkides, Dr. David Anderson, Greg Hampikian retired FBI agents Steve Moore and John Douglas, Ron Hendry, or psychology like Saul Kassin and Doug Bremner and so many lawyers I can't keep track of them all came forth to campaign on the internet and TV for her innocence as if you know anything about those subjects it's obvious what that 'evidence' consisted of.

During the whole period of 5:32 to 6:22.
But no sign of activity before that.

Even if the screensaver evidence existed it would only show that he spent the whole night moving the mouse without producing or using a single file, without startin a program and without using the internet.

So what was he doing on that computer all night long?

Oh, it may have been sitting on the bed, or on something next to it that would get jarred just enough to activate it momentarily, that's how many laptops work, including mine. What it shows is there was activity in that room pretty consistently all night long, something the appeal court didn't hear as it was unnecessary for their decision.

No, but clinging to their being turned on is the admission of the lack of a serious alibi. Like for example the computer use could have been, but was not.

Amanda had an alibi, Raffaele. So they arrested him too and when he gave them the computer as an alibi it ended up getting the data wiped after ~9:07. You do realize Raffaele wasn't using his own computer that night, but the one of his sisters that he had?

(Rudy's bunch of lies is another long history, I don't have time to start a thread on it)

OK then, fair enough.

 

[Alt+F4]

The ones with legitimate credentialed authority in scientific subjects like the biological sciences, forensics or law like Chris Halkides, David Anderson, Greg Hampikian Steve Moore and John Douglas, Ron Hendry, or psychology like Saul Kassin and Doug Bremer and so many lawyers I can't keep track of them all....[/b]

I don't understand your point Kaosium; nothing you posted mentioned the Lockerbie bombing.

 

[Kaosium]

I don't understand your point Kaosium; nothing you posted mentioned the Lockerbie bombing.

Why, do you think Amanda was involved? She toddled her way over to Heathrow as 'Tricksy Baby Vixen' and fooled everyone?

 

[Alt+F4]

Why, do you think Amanda was involved? She toddled her way over to Heathrow as 'Tricksy Baby Vixen' and fooled everyone?

I don't get it either Kaosium. Amanda was just a baby when the Lockerbie bombing happened!

 

[Rolfe]

Why, do you think Amanda was involved? She toddled her way over to Heathrow as 'Tricksy Baby Vixen' and fooled everyone?

Just under 18 months old? Hey, you might be on to something...!

Rolfe.

 

[Supernaut]

Good question. He is extremely wealthy and could have paid off all those corrupt cops and prosecutors. In fact, he is so rich the only reason why MK's family is perusing a civil case against him is to get his millions.

By now, it must have occurred to someone on Amanda's or Raff's legal teams that the ONLY thing that will get the Kerchers to call off the dogs will be paying them off.

I suspect that's what the Kerchers are hoping for - an "out of court settlement" of a million or two Euro.

AS far as I'm concerned - screw them.

The best course of action would be to pay off their legal bills on the quiet, make them sign a waiver to the effect that they're to piss-off and never say another word in public again.

That would still, unfortunately, leave the pig, Maresca, in profit.

Perhaps putting a contract out on him could be arranged?

 

[Supernaut]

The Kerchers must realise by now that a public "out of court settlement" is isn't going to happen.

There will NEVER be the slightest, faintest, tacit acknowledgement of doubt about Amanda's and Raff's innocence, or that the Kerchers have any legitimate complaint against them.

Not ever.

Period.

Full stop.

Until the end of reckoning.

But they might just might be too stupid to realise that.

 

[Charlie Wilkes]

Not only noticing the disorder. In her narrative she specifically describes that the doors were all closed, so she could not tell if anybody was at home.
She was shouting, hair drying, freaking out, but no, she would not look into Filomena's open room to see is she is at home. Would this be credible to you?
She absolutely must have that door closed. And that was undermined by Raffaele.

Preposterous.

Raffaele and Amanda have always given consistent accounts, albeit with the minor discrepancies that show up in any witness testimony. The phone records bear them out. Everything they describe is exactly consistent with people stumbling across a murder scene when they least expect it.

They're telling the truth.

Meredith was lying stone dead on the floor of a room awash with blood, with her throat torn open. Amanda and Raffaele would have nothing to do with any such crime. And if they had even the slightest inkling it had happened, they would have been utterly freaked out, panic-stricken. They would not have been able to pull off what they did on the morning of Nov. 2. They would not have tried.

The ability of people to look at Amanda Knox and see a cold, violent psychopath amazes me. It's a textbook example of mass delusion, of people seeing what they are told to see rather than what is really there.

I haven't posted this link for awhile. I guess it's time...

http://www.historylink.org/index.cfm?DisplayPage=output.cfm&File_Id=5136

 

[Charlie Wilkes]

What pray tell is interesting about the article in terms of guilt or innocence? For example is there some significance that she didn't report jail abuse to the State Department at the time but writes about it now? Let's say she has totally exaggerated the situation in her book to make it more interesting, does that make her look guilty of murder?

Amanda had to deal with a sleazy official who made suggestive comments, and one prison worker embraced her and kissed her, but she managed to break free.

This was a horrific experience for her, but it pales next to many prison accounts. Amanda's book is not primarily a story of prison abuse. Most of the handling she describes is not intentionally cruel or abusive. Her book is the story of a happy, cheerful college girl, living in a bubble of naive bliss, who suddenly finds herself subject to the treatment reserved for violent criminals. Its narrative power hinges on an understanding that she is completely innocent, but nobody believes her. Vogt doesn't have that understanding. So Vogt is scoring the text on details, indulging her tedious conviction that the police can do no wrong and Amanda is lying about everything.

I can't imagine that people outside Vogt's sick little cult will get the point of that article or find it interesting.

 

[Supernaut]

Perhaps the entire Italian justice system got this case entirely wrong.

Perhaps the entire Italian justice system is corrupt beyond belief.

Could be.

Incredible! I'm incredulous! What an utterly absurd idea! Ridiculous! LoL. ROTFL! <laughing dog gif I can't find right now>.

 

[acbytesla]

Perhaps the entire Italian justice system got this case entirely wrong.

Perhaps the entire Italian justice system is corrupt beyond belief.

Could be.

There have been three Italian judges who have retired in the last year who have said EXACTLY THAT!!