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

[Mary_H]

He became an Italian Supreme Court judge.

Excellent.

 

[Caper]

since there is no interrogation tape, the interviewers let up on Amanda just as soon as she implicated Patrick. Don't you think that's strange?

Why was there no interrogation tape?

 

[Mary_H]

Why was there no interrogation tape?

We don't know. Either they didn't record the interrogations (highly unlikely) or they recorded them, then hid, destroyed or lost the tapes.

 

[DrTesla]

We don't know. Either they didn't record the interrogations (highly unlikely) or they recorded them, then hid, destroyed or lost the tapes.

you do know. you've been told this over and over.

Knox was considered a witness, not a suspect at first. she was not even called into the station for witnessing, she tagged along with her "boyfriend" who was called in. they only questioned her at the time because her boyfriend pulled his alibi for her. they don't videotape witnesses.

they should have treated her like a suspect once the boyfriend pulled the alibi (you never hear Friends make this point b/c they deny the boyfriend pulled his alibi for her). that was their error in this case and it actually benefited Knox b/c her "false confession" could not be used against her in court because she was still a witness at this point. it's clear the police didn't really think she was the killer even after the boyfriend pulled the alibi from her, which makes it difficult to believe they were torturing her into confessing to being at the cottage. and into making false accusations.

 

[anglolawyer]

Sherlock

The discussion has moved on since you defended your crime theory so I won't respond in detail. I will just observe that the exercise is not to create an improbable and incoherent fantasy that happens to intersect at various points with the 'evidence', but to prove murder beyond a reasonable doubt.

If I accepted the evidence that you are apparently prepared to believe (Curatolo, the confessions, Guede) I would slightly prefer the idea they actually committed the crime to your theory. That would give them the motivation to cover it up, otherwise lacking in your version.

 

[DrTesla]

Sherlock

The discussion has moved on since you defended your crime theory so I won't respond in detail. I will just observe that the exercise is not to create an improbable and incoherent fantasy that happens to intersect at various points with the 'evidence', but to prove murder beyond a reasonable doubt.

If I accepted the evidence that you are apparently prepared to believe (Curatolo, the confessions, Guede) I would slightly prefer the idea they actually committed the crime to your theory. That would give them the motivation to cover it up, otherwise lacking in your version.

you ever notice that you are skeptical of everybody in this case but Knox? you basically don't believe anybody but Knox, and raffe by default.

 

[Antony]

Why was there no interrogation tape?

Not only is there no recording of Amanda's all-night interrogation, but there is none of Raff's preceding it, or of Patrick Lumumba's the next day.

The police "excuse" (one of them) is that they did not need to record Amanda's interrogation or accord her her rights to a lawyer, because at that stage she was "a witness, not a suspect". Yet they also claim that Raff had already withdrawn her alibi, and make numerous references to how her behaviour leading up to the all-night session allegedly raised their suspicions.

Not only that, but police chief Arturo di Felice described Amanda's statements resulting from the interrogation as "information we knew to be correct", in a press conference after the arrests.

 

[DrTesla]

Not only is there no recording of Amanda's all-night interrogation, but there is none of Raff's preceding it, or of Patrick Lumumba's the next day.

The police "excuse" (one of them) is that they did not need to record Amanda's interrogation or accord her her rights to a lawyer, because at that stage she was "a witness, not a suspect". Yet they also claim that Raff had already withdrawn her alibi, and make numerous references to how her behaviour leading up to the all-night session allegedly raised their suspicions.

Not only that, but police chief Arturo di Felice described Amanda's statements resulting from the interrogation as "information we knew to be correct", in a press conference after the arrests.

see, this guy is denying that Raffe pulled his alibi for Knox. he is lying about a basic fact in this case. this is standard Friends of Amanda propaganda.

 

[anglolawyer]

Yeah, when the police convinced her she had to have been there and had 'hard evidence' this was so and she had 'blocked' the memory due to trauma.

Even then she notes she's confused about it, and it lasted all of a day.

Why do you suppose the police thought those vague confused statements were real?

This is a big divide between the PIPs and the PGPs: whether you believe an innocent person could be prevailed upon to 'confess' to a crime. The PIPs have approached this difficult point from many angles:

- referencing other cases featuring false confessions
- addressing the content of the documents themselves
- addressing the context in which the confessions were made
- discussing the law governing suspects' rights

All to no avail. Perhaps one of the PGPs can explain why none of the points advanced under these heads is accepted as persuasive?

 

[Kevin_Lowe]

I'll back up just a bit, Amanda and Raff, by 8:45 had already eaten, had the spill (water), found out she didn't have to work, and by shutting her phone off, would not be called in had it got busy, already watched the movie and Raff was now free from his midnight engagement. It was a Friday night and being students, they had the whole weekend off. Amanda went home to get that mop she talked so much about, no need to wait til morning now that was free, and I bet to change from her work cloths into her going out cloths.
She met Rudi at the basketball court on her way home, they had met before and Rudi had said he liked Amanda so I'm sure they talked. Rudi had to use a washroom and Amanda knew were one was close by. When they get there, again, not sure if Meredith was already there or came shortly after. The argument started with Meredith over Rudi being there and escalated to the point where Rudi came running out of the washroom and attacked Meredith, who ran to her room. Amanda stayed in the kitchen and had to cover her ears at one point to drown out Meredith's scream. Amanda then ran to Raff's to tell him what had happened, I'm sure she had no idea a murder and rape was taking place, likely just an assault. Amanda and Raff returned, with the biggest knife he had in his drawer, Amanda stayed outside, Raff went in and confronted Rudi in the living room, had a few words and ran out of there with Amanda that Rudi saw thru Filomena's window. They walked to the court and sat by a bench where they could keep an eye out for when Rudi left, they also saw the broken down car and waited until it left before they went back. When they returned, they found Meredith's body, Amanda screamed 'the scream' heard at 11:00 to 11:30
They go back to Raff's and decide what to do next, they should have called the police but, being stoned, being just kids and being scared to death, Amanda being somewhat involved, they plan what they will do. Lock Meredith's door, put the Dubai over the body, stage a break in and plan Saturday and how the body will be discovered.
There is a min version, what evidence does not fit into that?

We've been over all this already. I guess we can do it again, although if you didn't take criticism of your pet theory on board last time that inclines me to believe that it's improbable you will take it on board this time.

This theory completely fails to take into account that someone was on Raffaele's computer all night, and so any story that has Raffaele and Amanda both out of the house at one time doesn't work. This is an absolute deal-breaker. If as a matter of act they were at home, your theory is destroyed immediately.

It also completely fails to give any credible story about why neither Amanda nor Raffaele just called the police. Your story has Amanda's friend screaming and under attack right there in the same house, and you think her reaction is to jog to her boyfriend's house some distance away, then jog back with him? Not to, say, call the police and yell "I've called the police! You better run!". That's crazy enough, but when they get back they still don't call the police, they decide to stage a break-in instead? In what universe does this make any kind of sense?

While I'm at it, isn't it a huge coincidence that Amanda and Raffaele "staged a break-in" which just happened to match Rudy's established modus operandi? How did they know he had a history of second-storey jobs involving breaking a window with a rock?

Have you heard the term "inference to best explanation"? This isn't inference to best explanation, it's just you joining up the data points you like with nonsensical Mad Libs and totally ignoring the data points you don't like. That's not how reason works.

I mean, you're still trying to Mad Lib around the "double DNA knife" for pity's sake. Catch up with the rest of us in 2013. The knife was irrelevant and shown to be so by independent experts. Let it go.

 

[DrTesla]

The knife was irrelevant and shown to be so by independent experts. Let it go.

Victim's DNA is found on the blade of a knife at the boyfriend's house. Let it go, nothing to see here. Move along.

 

[codyjuneau]

I admit I have a weak understanding of DNA, how it transfers, etc, etc but within my limited understanding, it doesn't seem odd that multiple male DNA might be found on a bra strap of a pretty girl of whom I would expect many males endeavored to remove over time.

Having said that, if DNA is easily removed when washing the bra, then I guess my point is moot

Hi yimyammer. I am way behind in the conversation but this is actually interesting.

As I understand it, there was NOT multiple male DNA on the bra strap. There was only multiple male DNA found on that little severed clasp that the police claim they lost for six weeks. The one they videotaped themselves re-finding, passing around with dirty gloves, putting back on the floor, picking up again, and finally bagging.

So I would ask, what reasonable explanation, would account for that little severed clasp, having the DNA of four male contributors, but none of those four male contributors, being found on the actual bra, tested six week earlier?

 

[DrTesla]

Hi yimyammer. I am way behind in the conversation but this is actually interesting.

As I understand it, there was NOT multiple male DNA on the bra strap. There was only multiple male DNA found on that little severed clasp that the police claim they lost for six weeks. The one they videotaped themselves re-finding, passing around with dirty gloves, putting back on the floor, picking up again, and finally bagging.

So I would ask, what reasonable explanation, would account for that little severed clasp, having the DNA of four male contributors, but none of those four male contributors, being found on the actual bra, tested six week earlier?

they only touched the bra clasp, which was more prone to touching than the rest of the bra. just b/c something is touched doesn't mean DNA is transferred which a lot of people seem real confused about. I don't think it is true that 4 people's DNA was on the bra clasp, but regardless, there is no innocent explaination for Raffe's DNA on the bra clasp. talking about other people's DNA is an attempt to divert from that.

 

[anglolawyer]

We've been over all this already. I guess we can do it again, although if you didn't take criticism of your pet theory on board last time that inclines me to believe that it's improbable you will take it on board this time.

This theory completely fails to take into account that someone was on Raffaele's computer all night, and so any story that has Raffaele and Amanda both out of the house at one time doesn't work. This is an absolute deal-breaker. If as a matter of act they were at home, your theory is destroyed immediately.

It also completely fails to give any credible story about why neither Amanda nor Raffaele just called the police. Your story has Amanda's friend screaming and under attack right there in the same house, and you think her reaction is to jog to her boyfriend's house some distance away, then jog back with him? Not to, say, call the police and yell "I've called the police! You better run!". That's crazy enough, but when they get back they still don't call the police, they decide to stage a break-in instead? In what universe does this make any kind of sense?

While I'm at it, isn't it a huge coincidence that Amanda and Raffaele "staged a break-in" which just happened to match Rudy's established modus operandi? How did they know he had a history of second-storey jobs involving breaking a window with a rock?

Have you heard the term "inference to best explanation"? This isn't inference to best explanation, it's just you joining up the data points you like with nonsensical Mad Libs and totally ignoring the data points you don't like. That's not how reason works.

I mean, you're still trying to Mad Lib around the "double DNA knife" for pity's sake. Catch up with the rest of us in 2013. The knife was irrelevant and shown to be so by independent experts. Let it go.

Is this an established fact? What's the evidence? Please cite it.

 

[Mary_H]

Ha! I might have to say you got me.

I'm no expert on the legal definition of circumstantial evidence, what is the accepted definition?

What is the accepted legal definition of evidence?

The "confession" where she points the blame at Patrick and says she was there seems like a circumstance that brought suspicion upon herself.

Raf withdrawing her alibi and then reinstating it.

The bra clasp and DNA on the knife seem to be evidence, but obviously in dispute, as I would assume most evidence is disputed by defense attorneys.

I'm not saying I give these much weight if any nor do I think they are enough to convict, it just doesn't strike me that the prosecution got up and said AK/Raf committed this murder and when the judge asked why, they responded by saying "because we said so".

Good question though, because I'm drawing a blank for the most part

I don't know either, yimyammer, but I bet some of our lawyers do.

The thing about all the evidence you cite is that it was all, um, uncovered(?)...er...developed(?)...er...created(?) after the suspects were in police custody. To me, the question has never been about having enough evidence to convict, but about having enough evidence even to suspect.

 

[Mary_H]

Why was there no interrogation tape?

Here is the prosecutor's explanation of why there is no tape, given in an interview with CNN in 2011. Note that he admits having taped many witnesses, just not Amanda and Raffaele, suspects in the crime of the century.

Notice how he also says "it isn't done" and "we have budget problems" and that to him, it isn't enough just to get the voice recording, they also must have video. And the dog ate his homework, and his papers flew off the top of his car and his fish died and he had to do his Christmas shopping.

12’51’’ CNN: Why wasn’t there any video or transcript of those hours?
13’00’’ Mignini: Look, that’s, I was at the police station, and all the…let’s say…when I made investigations in my own office, I taped them. I taped them, we have an apparatus for that, and I transcribed them. For example, there’s the interrogation of the English girls, Meredith’s friends, it was all taped. The interrogations of Amanda in prison were taped, and then transcribed, and we have the transcripts of… But in a police station, at the very moment of the investigation it isn’t done, not with respect to Amanda or anyone else. Also because, I can tell you, today, even then, but today in particular, we have budget problems, budget problems that are not insignificant, which do not allow us to transcribe. Video is very important…I completely agree with you that videotaping is extremely important, we should be able to have a video recording of every statement [verbale di assunzione di informazioni] made Because what is said is very important, but it’s maybe even more important how it is said, the non-verbal language. Because from the non-verbal language you can [missing words].
15’14’’ Mignini: It isn’t only Amanda, it’s always like that. But I wanted to say that I agree with him that it’s fundamental, only there’s a problem, especially when the witnesses are so numerous, and in fact just recording, I mean recording the sound, isn’t enough according to me.
15’38’’ CNN: It doesn’t cost much, he says.
15’40’’ Mignini: Well we have significant budget problems, that’s what it is.

http://amada-knox-data.wikispaces.com/Mignini-CNN-interview

 

[DrTesla]

Here is the prosecutor's explanation of why there is no tape, given in an interview with CNN in 2011. Note that he admits having taped many witnesses, just not Amanda and Raffaele, suspects in the crime of the century.

Notice how he also says "it isn't done" and "we have budget problems" and that to him, it isn't enough just to get the voice recording, they also must have video. And the dog ate his homework, and his papers flew off the top of his car and his fish died and he had to do his Christmas shopping.



http://amada-knox-data.wikispaces.com/Mignini-CNN-interview

you more worried about this guy making excuses over not videotaping witnesses than the fact Knox butchered her roommate and then had sex with her "boyfriend" right next to the dead body, or maybe as the victim lied there dying.

 

[Antony]

She met Rudi at the basketball court on her way home, they had met before and Rudi had said he liked Amanda so I'm sure they talked.

Sherlock, what language did they use?

 

[CaptainHowdy]

you more worried about this guy making excuses over not videotaping witnesses than the fact Knox butchered her roommate and then had sex with her "boyfriend" right next to the dead body, or maybe as the victim lied there dying.

Is that your theory about how the sex went down? I haven't heard that one before. Maybe you and Miginini should write porno scripts together.

 

[Kevin_Lowe]

Is this an established fact? What's the evidence? Please cite it.

As I recall Raffaele's defence team during the appeal claimed that a screensaver log file showed that there was no period in which Raffaele's laptop went unused for longer that twenty minutes until 6am the morning after the murder.

This evidence wasn't examined in court because Hellmann (correctly) concluded that there was no case to answer once the DNA evidence and Curatolo's testimony had been chucked out, but I see no particular reason to think they were lying.