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

[Chris_Halkides]

plus one

Like many have said, the next time the Heart & Stroke foundation have an ad on TV, merely to coerce you to donate to their cause, I'm going to decline on the grounds, "It's just a PR campaign."

LOL, you deserve a nomination for pith.

 

[Grinder]

On that note, in the interviews I've seen, its one thing I feel like she should be screaming at the top of her lungs----> that she didn't even know Rudy (beyond quick introductions and being in the same room at a couple of occasions) and neither did Raf, so the idea that the three of them spontaneously got together in the short amount of time they had between discovering they were free for the evening and the time of the murder and committed this crime is ludicrous.

It is possible that they got together over a small drug buy by Amanda from Rudi. She knew well enough to buy a small quantity of something from him and meet him at the cottage. She might have been hesitant to bring any man to Raf's place as he was a bit possessive.

There is no way that the three of them planned the attack on Meredith and the fantasies of the PGP about Amanda's hate and jealousy of Meredith are ridiculous. Although personally not attracted, Amanda was clearly as, if not more, attractive than Meredith. Amanda had many talents: language, music, sport and an ability to get higher grades than she probably deserved. The long effort of the PGP to make Meredith some superior person to Amanda is sad not just because it's not true but because it begs for this sort of reply. Amanda attended a much more renowned university and did well there. She wasn't part of a formal study abroad program but so what?

Amanda made friends with non-Americans and had acquired a job whereas Meredith hung mostly with british girls and was dating the pot-growing dude from downstairs.

I wish she had asked her interviewers why they don't attack Rudy with the same level of scrutiny and question him exhaustively as to how this crime took place and what his versions of events were.

He is convicted. He isn't available for interviews. If he writes a book (or Mignini writes one for him), he will be cross-examined.

I think Amanda should make a strong statement that Rudi was there, admits he was there, left DNA and prints in the murder room, on Meredith's purse and on her body. She should go on to say that she had met Rudi when together with Meredith through M's boyfriend and had seen him around but not that day or night.

I have a hard time believing that a tough interviewer or attorney wouldn't have him tripping over his own words in no time at all or the outside chance that he miraculously gives the world a true account of how these three found themselves in a murder spree on that night that finally explains what happened in a way that makes sense and corresponds with the evidence at the scene.

The most disgusting part of the Italian system is that Rudi case and comments could be used against the kids but he was not forced to go through a thorough cross. Had he been forced into a cross either we would be convinced of her guilt or all but the most insane of the PGP would agree she was guilty.

Are the tapes of his interrogations available?

 

[Chris_Halkides]

one more question for the prosecution

Mary, good post. The prosecutors should be asked, if you found Amanda so suspicious, why did you tell her and Raffaele in effect not to get lawyers? They both walked into the station that night as suspects in fact. By law they should have been appointed lawyers on the spot, whether they wanted lawyers or not.

 

[Mary_H]

Mary, good post. The prosecutors should be asked, if you found Amanda so suspicious, why did you tell her and Raffaele in effect not to get lawyers? They both walked into the station that night as suspects in fact. By law they should have been appointed lawyers on the spot, whether they wanted lawyers or not.

Thank you, halides1. I found it very irritating in the Cuomo interview that he kept pressing the "Why YOU?" question, and then implying (or stating) that Amanda's behavior was noticeably odd or different. Even Amanda doesn't yet seem to realize it was not her behavior that was noticeable, it was her looks and her nationality.

In reading over the reports of the three Ohio women who have been freed from their kidnappers, I notice no one is asking why they, in particular, were kidnapped. Obviously, they were kidnapped because they were attractive to their kidnappers.

 

[Bill Williams]

Mary, good post. The prosecutors should be asked, if you found Amanda so suspicious, why did you tell her and Raffaele in effect not to get lawyers? They both walked into the station that night as suspects in fact. By law they should have been appointed lawyers on the spot, whether they wanted lawyers or not.

By law they should have been appointed lawyers only if the cops and Mignini wanted the information gleaned to be usable in court.

 

[Bill Williams]

A lot of people take it for granted that Amanda should be asked questions about why she was suspected, arrested, tried, convicted and imprisoned.

Why should she? She has nothing to answer for. She had nothing to do with it. Everything that happened to her was initiated by the police and the prosecutors. They are the ones who should be asked why Amanda was suspected, arrested, tried, convicted and imprisoned. Then, when their answers don't make any sense, they should be seriously taken to task.

Every time someone asks Amanda about her behavior and her sexuality, they are lending credence to the malicious case against her. Most of our society now refrains from asking rape victims why they were raped, because they know the victim has no responsibility to explain. That should be the thinking in Amanda's case.

The best part of the exchange between Knox and Cuomo was when Cuomo took her to task for continually talking about "lack of evidence" rather than actually proclaiming her innocence.

She basically said, "Ya like THAT worked!" She proclaimed her innocence at the interrogation and was called a liar as a result. That was the whole point of the de Felice remark, "She buckled and told us what we already knew." Then when she was away from the interrogation she started trying to clarify her coerced confusion, then fairly quickly went back to proclaiming innocence.

I wish Knox had said to Cuomo more bluntly, "Ya, like proclaiming my innocence worked out! No wonder I now default to the actual lack of evidence that I had anything to do with this."

Some people seem hell bent on massaging the double-bind here. I actually don't know how the woman stays sane with all this bait and switching going on.

On another note - The 911 dispatcher in the 3-kidnapped women case in Cleveland is now being called to task for the handling of Amanda Berry's 911 call.

What is amazing and it is more than just the guilters, is that few even bother asking about the procedures the Perugian cops and judiciary used or allowed. Who holds THEM accountable? Andrea Vogt? Barbie Nadeau? Mignini's housewives?

 

[Grinder]

A lot of people take it for granted that Amanda should be asked questions about why she was suspected, arrested, tried, convicted and imprisoned.

She is on a book selling tour. She writes about those very aspects. That's the heart of the book, what should they be asking about?

She doesn't know what happened as well as some people here. She sat in jail for 4 years reading novels. I doubt even people here would like to read and hear only about her jail and court experiences.

By asking the questions she gets a chance to clear things up. If she weren't asked it would seem like a cover-up.

Why should she? She has nothing to answer for. She had nothing to do with it. Everything that happened to her was initiated by the police and the prosecutors. They are the ones who should be asked why Amanda was suspected, arrested, tried, convicted and imprisoned. Then, when their answers don't make any sense, they should be seriously taken to task.

Neither she nor Raf argue that their behavior wasn't odd. She goes on about how immature she was and that she regrets most that she let them manipulate her.

They aren't there and they aren't selling a book. I would love to see Mignini write a book and go on a tour of interviews outside of Italy and England.

The ILE should be taken to task regardless.

Every time someone asks Amanda about her behavior and her sexuality, they are lending credence to the malicious case against her. Most of our society now refrains from asking rape victims why they were raped, because they know the victim has no responsibility to explain. That should be the thinking in Amanda's case.

Once again this a book tour and I'm sure that HC wants these questions asked. If Amanda didn't want this kind of interviews, she could have self published or taken a much lower advance. I in no way begrudge her the money she is getting and I wouldn't even if she and family hadn't run up all their expenses.

Amanda while a victim isn't a victim in same way as a rape victim. She made self-admitted mistakes that contributed to her ordeal.

Part of the purpose of the book is to let people know that they must be aware and take care of themselves.

 

[Skeptic Ginger]

Cuomo showed an astonishing lack of interest in who actually killed Meredith Kercher. He may be the worst interviewer I have ever seen on a major network.

The Knox family has spent 2.1 million dollars defending and supporting Amanda so far, with years to go.

I thought it was a disgusting interview. One would think he didn't know crap about the case and assumed there actually was evidence against Knox.

One thing that struck me, and vindicates my cartwheel comment, Knox said repeatedly that people interpreted everything she did as some kind of evidence of guilt. I wish I had a transcript to quote from but she said just what I did, she didn't react the way people's preconceived ideas were about how she should have reacted and that's what the whole persecution stemmed from.

 

[Grinder]

The best part of the exchange between Knox and Cuomo was when Cuomo took her to task for continually talking about "lack of evidence" rather than actually proclaiming her innocence.

Given that this isn't an interrogation at Perugian Police HQ I think she should clearly state first that she didn't have anything to do with the crime in any way shape or form.

Then she should say that she can't believe that anyone would believe she could have been there and not leave anything behind. She could quote Locard .

Then go back to the frustration that some people look to her for clarity about the murder when she can't help at all because she wasn't there, period.

I do love that she used the word 'copious' in relationship to Rudi's DNA in her NZ interview - "in your face Harry Rag"

She cap it by saying that there is no doubt that the prosecution didn't prove her guilty beyond a reasonable doubt and they never will because I wasn't there, had nothing to do with the murder or anyone who did. Rudi Guede was clearly there and whether or not he killed her alone or with an accomplice but I know no more than the crime tourists that have folloed the case for 4 years.

She finishes by saying that she have anything to do with it but my book may help someone in the future from falling victim to a judicial system like Italy's.

 

[Skeptic Ginger]

....
Amanda while a victim isn't a victim in same way as a rape victim. She made self-admitted mistakes that contributed to her ordeal. ....

Is it a "mistake" if one doesn't hold up against the tactics that elicit false confessions? Victimized, not 'made a mistake' is the way I see the issue of false confessions. The science supports that such confessions are the result of psychological battering, not simple ignorance. Obviously some people are more capable of resisting , but unless one is in that situation, one can never be positive how one would react.

 

[Skeptic Ginger]

Given that this isn't an interrogation at Perugian Police HQ I think she should clearly state first that she didn't have anything to do with the crime in any way shape or form.

Then she should say that she can't believe that anyone would believe she could have been there and not leave anything behind. She could quote Locard .

Then go back to the frustration that some people look to her for clarity about the murder when she can't help at all because she wasn't there, period....

When asked, this was one of the most disgusting leading questions of the interview, "You can see why people think you are guilty saying there is no evidence instead of saying you didn't do it".

She answered it, she told people over and over for 4 years she didn't do it and no one listened.

You are faulting her for not saying what you expect her to say. I thought her answer made perfect sense.

 

[Grinder]

Is it a "mistake" if one doesn't hold up against the tactics that elicit false confessions? Victimized, not 'made a mistake' is the way I see the issue of false confessions. The science supports that such confessions are the result of psychological battering, not simple ignorance. Obviously some people are more capable of resisting , but unless one is in that situation, one can never be positive how one would react.

Watch her interviews. Listen to her. It's not just how she did or didn't hold up under the interrogation. There is no doubt that the accusation was a result of police suggestion.

I do think of her as a victim but not in the same way as a rape victim.

 

[Kaosium]

I am tired of interviewers like Couric and Cuomo. They think that they are asking tough questions, but in fact they are nothing more than PM Mignini's useful idiots.

That's how those kind of questions need to be handled, put the focus back on Mignini.

 

[anglolawyer]

That's how those kind of questions need to be handled, put the focus back on Mignini.

[Mixed metaphor]Well, she burned her bridges with the book so no point pulling punches now.[/mixed metaphor]

 

[yimyammer]

The most disgusting part of the Italian system is that Rudi case and comments could be used against the kids but he was not forced to go through a thorough cross. Had he been forced into a cross either we would be convinced of her guilt or all but the most insane of the PGP would agree she was guilty.

I'm glad to hear someone else express this sentiment. When I heard he was going to go on the stand at the appeal trial, I couldn't wait to hear what he would say and anticipated the defense thoroughly cross examining him. When I caught wind of what actually occurred and how Mignini read his statement and virtually no questions were asked, I was shocked and pissed.

I think one could justify reasonable doubt based on police/government malfeasance in regards to the charade of Rudy's "testimony, the stunt they pulled in releasing Amanda's sex partners via the aids scare and the fact the bra clasp wasn't picked up at the time immediately after the crime occurred.

I guess I buy into the the American notion of its better to let a guilty person go free than put one innocent person in jail, something I don't hear anyone ever mention in regard to this case. And I don't say this to bash the ILS & proclaim the US legal system as the be all end all. All systems have flaws because all systems rely on flawed human beings. i just happen to agree with the notion of leaning toward innocence, even when there might be a chance of guilt, when LE, prosecutors, government officials and or judges have done enough things to cast doubt on the process of finding the truth.

Are the tapes of his interrogations available?

I wish, I don't know

Does anyone know what the short clip below of Rudy saying he saw Amanda Knox in a window is from?

http://youtu.be/rFuw6-M-3s0

(Sorry, I dont know how to embed videos here)

 

[Draca]

I thought it was a disgusting interview. One would think he didn't know crap about the case and assumed there actually was evidence against Knox.

One thing that struck me, and vindicates my cartwheel comment, Knox said repeatedly that people interpreted everything she did as some kind of evidence of guilt. I wish I had a transcript to quote from but she said just what I did, she didn't react the way people's preconceived ideas were about how she should have reacted and that's what the whole persecution stemmed from.

Transcript of Chris Cuomo interview:
http://transcripts.cnn.com/TRANSCRIPTS/1305/07/se.01.html

 

[Draca]

Comment from Chris Cuomo:

"Thanks for all the interest in the Amanda Knox intv. You are all free to judge her and me but allow a little context. The allegations about her sexuality have not been proven in court. In fact, there was almost no proof offered to support prosecutors' theories abt "deviance gone terribly wrong". Also, how someone reacts after a crime or with police is not a great basis for judging criminality.

Most of you know me and my work and to some i seemed unusually aggressive. But to be clear, Knox came to me because after the first wave of media she felt there was still a need to face the tough questions and points that fuel doubt abt her. That was the intv I promised her. It would have been easier for me to mix soft balls and hard balls but i wanted to give her the chance to respond to the worst of what is out there. If people, after hearing the tough questions and the accusations that are certainly out there about her ( nothing I asked was created by me as an idea/ all were criticisms or conjecture from media or prosecutors ), if people feel her answers were better than the questions , then i did my job. I am satisfied with criticism of style if it evoked a fair appraisal of Knox.

Again, you all are free and encouraged to judge the answers and the questions as u see fit, but just know there was a promise of format and intent, and the promise was kept. One of the first people to contact me after the interview was Amanda Knox and she said thank you for the opportunity to take on the tough stuff."

https://www.facebook.com/chrisccuomo?fref=ts

 

[Skeptic Ginger]

Transcript of Chris Cuomo interview:
http://transcripts.cnn.com/TRANSCRIPTS/1305/07/se.01.html

Thanks.

CUOMO: Your roommates, your boyfriend, the cops, they all say the same thing. They thought you were responding weird. Odd. Strange.

KNOX: Yes.

CUOMO: Why? Why are you the one who is strange? What makes you strange?

KNOX: I reacted differently than the way people expected a young woman to react. But to hold me to a stereotype of how people react to certain things is unreasonable. And it's unreasonable to assume guilt based upon a reaction. I mean, my reaction was more stunned than anything else.

CUOMO: But it's not just one-on-one thing, right? There's the kissing. There's the split. You know, there's the repeated nonchalance or what they see as non-grief.

KNOX: I went into Perugia very young, not just 20, but just young. Young and sheltered and inexperienced. And, you know, when I first heard and understood that Meredith had been murdered. My immediate reaction was oh my God, I could be dead. ...

CUOMO: As a result, you seem flat, you seem cold, you seem indifferent. Not to be insulting, but those are the observations.

KNOX: The observations, I don't think, are fair to be quite honest, ...

I mean, as I was going through all of this, when I cried, it was bad. When I didn't cry, it was bad. When I smiled it was bad. When I didn't smile, it was bad. It -- I have been paralyzed by this kind of scrutiny. And -- and I feel like it's unfair. ...

CUOMO: Do you think you come off to I can't prove it and not enough I didn't do it. Do you understand the distinction between those two? Ask me if I killed somebody, the answer is no, I didn't do it. I didn't do it. I didn't do it. Not you can't prove it. Not you can't place me at the scene. Do you understand how you can't place me at the scene sounds cagey?

KNOX: Yes, I mean, I have professed from the very beginning that I didn't do it and no one believed me. I was screaming it to the prosecutor when they were screaming at me during my interrogation telling me that I had amnesia, telling me that I had to know what I told them I didn't know and I do it and I wasn't there and no one listened to me. It's like I'm having to prove my innocence instead of just saying it.

She didn't act the way people think she should have acted.

 

[Welshman]

I might be old fashioned in this respect but in determing guilt or innocence I believe you must look at the evidence objectively and rationally without allowing emotion to get in the way. Do you feel that this did not happen in this case? Do you feel that a climate of hysteria was created in this case? Do you feel the demonisation of Amanda built up so much hatred against Amanda that a hysterical lynch mob mentality took over where people could not think rationally about the facts of the case which led to people believing Amanda was guilty despite the very weak evidence against her? Does this explain how the guilter movement was created. Do you feel that so much hatred has been built up against Amanda, the hate would not die out even if Meredith turned up alive.

I was arguing with a guilter on Amazon reviews and he liked to use the argument that Amanda and Raffaele must be guilty because people thought they were guilty. Do you feel that under the right circumstances people may believe that someone is guilty of a crime regardless of how weak the evidence is?

 

[anglolawyer]

I might be old fashioned in this respect but in determing guilt or innocence I believe you must look at the evidence objectively and rationally without allowing emotion to get in the way. Do you feel that this did not happen in this case? Do you feel that a climate of hysteria was created in this case? Do you feel the demonisation of Amanda built up so much hatred against Amanda that a hysterical lynch mob mentality took over where people could not think rationally about the facts of the case which led to people believing Amanda was guilty despite the very weak evidence against her? Does this explain how the guilter movement was created. Do you feel that so much hatred has been built up against Amanda, the hate would not die out even if Meredith turned up alive.

I was arguing with a guilter on Amazon reviews and he liked to use the argument that Amanda and Raffaele must be guilty because people thought they were guilty. Do you feel that under the right circumstances people may believe that someone is guilty of a crime regardless of how weak the evidence is?

is that an argument?