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

[Grinder]

Someone criticized Wilkes for getting involved to the extent that he did, having some psychological issues etc.

It came to me that those people running the guilt sites for 7 years, posting on every article, doing power-points, writing emails and letters to employers of any public supporter of innocence, attacking those same people publicly etc. deserve a harsher analysis than Charlie, much harsher.

 

[Kaosium]

Kaosium

Let's not talk passed each other. I plainly did not grasp what you said to Mary. Kindly use more smilies next time then we'll get along jest fine!

I was using that as a motif merely to start my post to underline that her 'admission' to 'the facts we knew to be correct' didn't amount to much of anything as there was almost nothing in there about the crime as it actually occurred and that Mignini's pornographic fantasy was invented out of whole cloth with no basis in any statement or forensics. Yet they arrested Patrick on this and would later claim it was all her fault. Even with the Reid technique where they encourage a suspect to confess to something minimal they actually try to get the facts of the crime correct--that's the whole point. A confession is better than piece of paper it's a roadmap to the other evidence of the crime.

If she was a 'witness' to this crime, are they believing (theoretically) that she actually did block memory of this and thus is just a traumatized girl they should have sought help for? Or if they're allowing that she suffered some sort of 'blackout' due to an altered state (not with hash but it does happen with other intoxicants including the most popular one) then her post-murder activities are accounted for.

However in reality, and what their actions indicate, they didn't believe any of it, so why did they rush out and arrest Patrick and then claim later it was all her doing and they knew nothing about anything regarding Patrick until she brought it up? How did she manage to 'fool' (at least) twelve police officers with this drivel if they're going to pretend she was the sole impetus of it? While in the abstract her signing a statement placing herself and Patrick at the scene after the previous four and a half days of questioning is incriminating, in the context of their subsequent actions, statements and what they took before Matteini (and what Napoleoni, Ficarra and Lugarini testified to before Massei they knew nothing about Patrick until she just blurted it out) their story just doesn't hold together. It works both ways.

It's a settled fact that Patrick called Amanda at the Questura on the night of 02 Nov (it's in her book for one thing) but it's only a surmise of mine the cops thought this suspicious when tied up with other stuff.

That makes sense of course, I was just wondering if that was in Matteini.

I had a bet with Grinder on continuation thread 4 (which I won but he welshed) that the Patrick's name did not come up at all prior to the night of 05-06. Again, it's only surmise but I think reasonable surmise, that the cops considered her failure to mention this black man she worked for highly suspicious. They were focused on her from the first, probably got that info from several people (Laura and Filomena for example) and wondered why, in all the hours of questioning she never referred to him. Then they met on the church or university steps on 05 Nov, a meeting I am sure was observed and interpreted as an attempt to communicate without being overheard. That might have been the clincher, although the exchange of texts was the real key due to its timing.

No argument from me that they actually had reason to be suspicious of Amanda and Patrick together, Anglo. However that's not what they said in court, they were firm but fair, just upbraided her for not telling them she was smoking hash, her shameless cuddling with Raffaele and of course the CARTWHEELS and while serving her sweeties and a tea that starts with a 'C' and gets suspiciously frenchified-looking after that, they're spontaneously going through her phone and she blurts out something about 'OMG Patrick--he's the murderer!' and they're 'shocked, shocked' as they never even considered him.

An alternative theory is they genuinely did not know she knew Patrick or worked at Le Chic. But that requires them to be stupid cops. Wait a second.

If they have her phone records and are taping everything I cannot believe they did not ever look on the page that has what her phone records recorded for that night. Especially when they would say "her mobile phone records were crucial" to them 'solving' the crime.

 

[DrTesla]

"Looks guilty"? Ok..... I'm looking through the criminal code for the defintion of "looks guilty". I thought we paid cops to be able to look past cartwheels and saying, "Ta Da", to catch people who get away precisely because they don't look guilty.

I think one simple definition of a suspect is "looks guilty". they are holding her as a suspect. guilt or innocence is only confirmed by a jury of her peers.

Only Friends really bring up the cartwheel thing and the ta da thing that much, to use a strawman that is the only reason she was a suspect. I have focused on her sex life a lot b/c she seems to be a sex addict and have some psychological issues that are exposed by the fact she is having so much sex and acting inappropriate in a sexual way in situatuions where is it clearly inappropriate and weird.

 

[DrTesla]

Someone criticized Wilkes for getting involved to the extent that he did, having some psychological issues etc.

It came to me that those people running the guilt sites for 7 years, posting on every article, doing power-points, writing emails and letters to employers of any public supporter of innocence, attacking those same people publicly etc. deserve a harsher analysis than Charlie, much harsher.

well I will concede some of those pro-guilt websites have some obsessed people as well. one of them was talking about buying the House of Horrors in Perugia where the Butcher of Perugia Knox went to work on her roommate, to make it a memorial for the victim. that seemed a bit weird since they don't know the family and who has money to buy a house where a murder took place? it's possible some of those people had a family member or relative get killed by somebody, and who knows, maybe there was never any justice for those victims so maybe they have a special interest in justice for this victim.

I know that my type of humor about this case would be attacked by most of those people, as they are always real serious and grim and annoyingly pretentios at times when discussing this case and they act like they are doing it for Meridith and her family, which seems a bit intrusive to me. I refuse to get emotionally attached to a dead girl because there's not anything I can do for her, or her family. would that I could.

I think that my descriptions of Meredith as a conceited girl, mostly based on her thinking she is hot stuff b/c she was in a music video, would be a bannable offense at one of the partisan pro-guilt websites. They banned me for being conservative, and really just challenging some Italian babe on there who was celebrating Thatcher's death, although they will never admit to that. the host of that website, besides being an ultra liberal nut you'd expect in Seattle, is also ultra nationalistic about Italy, I'm assuming b/c she translates Italian documents by day, and probably loves the country. You cannot say something harmless like you think it's a bit odd they have judges on the jury in Italy b/c they could "lead" the lay judges to their own conclusion without this babe acting like you are slamming Italy across the board. all justice systems have flaws and only an idiot is going to pretend otherwise.

 

[Mary_H]

Hummm...how very Machiavellian.

LOL, let's hope I don't get to the point where I am calling people too stupid to waste my time on!

 

[Kaosium]

Here is a link to her first and second letter to her lawyers from 9 November. The complete text of her second memorilale is in her book, and portions have appeared in several places already.

Thank you for posting that!

 

[Bill Williams]

Someone criticized Wilkes for getting involved to the extent that he did, having some psychological issues etc.

It came to me that those people running the guilt sites for 7 years, posting on every article, doing power-points, writing emails and letters to employers of any public supporter of innocence, attacking those same people publicly etc. deserve a harsher analysis than Charlie, much harsher.

Agreed.

 

[Dan O.]

Whether the blood wore off going outside or walking around the kitchen, at some point the shoe would not leave a trail even using Luminol. Dan O, I do you know if there were any Luminol prints of Rudi'd left shoe - I'm sure you've discussed it and I apologize in advance for asking.

I know I've thought about it and perhaps made a comment or two. But I'm not sure that it has actually been discussed.

We know that there were bloody footprints in the hall that were compatible with Rudy's shoes and tested positive for blood. These were cleaned up with a simple swab perhaps moistened until there was no visible blood. That should have left sufficient blood behind to react with the luminol. Yet none of those spots were photographed. In fact, nothing was photographed unless it was a large spot that could possibly be a footprint. We can see reactions outside of the footprints themselves so we know that there was more there than what was recorded. ILE chose to be selective in what they recorded that night so it is not possible to say that there we're no residual marks of the footprints in that hall that were illuminated by the luminol.

 

[Bill Williams]

I think one simple definition of a suspect is "looks guilty". they are holding her as a suspect. guilt or innocence is only confirmed by a jury of her peers.

Only Friends really bring up the cartwheel thing and the ta da thing that much, to use a strawman that is the only reason she was a suspect. I have focused on her sex life a lot b/c she seems to be a sex addict and have some psychological issues that are exposed by the fact she is having so much sex and acting inappropriate in a sexual way in situatuions where is it clearly inappropriate and weird.

With all due respect, you do not know what you are talking about. You are, however, entitled to an opinion. When you start throwing around psychological analyses, though, you plain do not know what you are talking about. I will reverse this, however, if you can post any credentials other than that you want to talk dirty on a website somewhere.

 

[Bill Williams]

I think one simple definition of a suspect is "looks guilty". they are holding her as a suspect. guilt or innocence is only confirmed by a jury of her peers.

Only Friends really bring up the cartwheel thing and the ta da thing that much, to use a strawman that is the only reason she was a suspect. I have focused on her sex life a lot b/c she seems to be a sex addict and have some psychological issues that are exposed by the fact she is having so much sex and acting inappropriate in a sexual way in situatuions where is it clearly inappropriate and weird.

I am glad you are not convinced by these strawman arguments. You do know, however, that it was precisely these behavioural indicators that allowed trained investigators to declare guilt before any forensics came in?

Thanks for this. Look up de Felice's analysis of this case.

 

[DrTesla]

With all due respect, you do not know what you are talking about. You are, however, entitled to an opinion. When you start throwing around psychological analyses, though, you plain do not know what you are talking about. I will reverse this, however, if you can post any credentials other than that you want to talk dirty on a website somewhere.

thank you for conferring upon me, or at least acknowledging that I have freedom of speech.

I admitted that I'm bit of an amateur psychologist. what is the problem? I have no formal training in the workings of the brain but human psychology is my passion after work.

how have I talked dirty on here? other than to speak of Knox's active sex life, which she herself admits she does not apologize for in her book? If she talks bout it in her book it seems like its fair game for the public at large.

 

[DrTesla]

I am glad you are not convinced by these strawman arguments. You do know, however, that it was precisely these behavioural indicators that allowed trained investigators to declare guilt before any forensics came in?

Thanks for this. Look up de Felice's analysis of this case.

I always questions these experts who have such strong opinions from far away and not being involved in the case. My brother's wife is a psychiatrist and she would never give me an opininion or diagnosis outside of her office even if I described some of my issues to her, which are many. Professionals don't tend to take to the media and garner attention for themselves. this is I don't believe Steve Moore knows what he is talking about.

 

[Dan O.]

Glad you used the word potential. Sweaty hands and certain conditions can facilitate but not guarantee transfer Pressure can but not always pick up DNA. It was found on the clasp," her clothing" .Struggling and climbing in a window yielded nothing , nor did heaving a 9 1b rock or washing in the bathroom .

What was Rudy the burglar wearing that November night? Do you think he would be wearing gloves? Gloves are quite nice for keeping someone's hands warm on a cold night. They are also usefull if you don't want to scratch your hands while handling rough rocks or picking glass out of windows. And just incidentally, gloves don't leave fingerprints and prevent shedding touch DNA on things that you handle. Has there ever been a case in history where real burglars wore gloves? I know they show that all the time on TV shows and in the movies. It's almost like a cliche. But what's it like in the real world? Maybe this needs to be investigated.

 

[Sherlock Holmes]

It's Rudi's. He left in a panic and when he reached the outdoors he realized he needed a plan and needed to clean up (as he himself reported using a sweatshirt to hide his pants) so he returned after a short time. His shoe no longer left blood at this point. It is almost certainly what happened.

You know, your probably right, if Amanda didn't lock that door, and she didn't if she is innocent, then your theory must be correct, there is no other possible explanation, If of course she didn't lock that door. I'm certain you must be right.

 

[Skeptic Ginger]

Knox has been on local media a bit, releasing her book and all. Tonight she was on the local public radio. It's the first time I heard more of the story of the false confession. The police told her she was there and didn't remember. They told her her boss was there because phone records showed he had called. In other words the police told her he did it and Knox was having a memory lapse about it.

It's easy to see how that kind of interrogation led to the false confession and implicating the boss.

 

[Sherlock Holmes]

There were two interrogations, Sherlock, one with the police and one with Mignini. If they were going to stop the questioning once Amanda became a suspect, don't you think they should have stopped it after the first interrogation and first signed confession/accusation? And whether or not she became a suspect after the first interrogation or the second one, where was her lawyer? A lot of activity ensued after the end of the second interrogation, such as bringing Amanda a bunch of documents to sign, including her arrest warrant.

The most efficient, professional way of handling it (aside from just getting her a lawyer in the first place) would have been to continue to question her as strictly a witness, in order to get as much information as possible. Then once they had a complete case, they could have made her a suspect.

This is all moot, though, because they never DID ask those additional questions about all the small details of the crime. And that is beyond understanding.

I would say she went from being a witness to becoming a suspect after the first one, had she a lawyer then the second one should have been taped, but she didn't so there was no reason to I would think. I can see why the questioning stopped once she said she was there because she now became a suspect, but I agree, additional questions should have been asked but weren't.

 

[Bill Williams]

If satantic rite was his angle at any point, why wouldn't he just admit it? It was bound to get out to the press at some point if it was his motive theory. there may be some credibliy to the investigators thinking this crime had some kind of Halloweenish theme at first simply b/c it took place the day after Halloween but that's a far cry from a satanic rite theory.

Dr. Tesla - I am amazed that after providing you with the citation from a guilter author, that you still do not accept that Mignini was pushing this theory.

I think I will fade into the background now. You ask for proof. I provide it. Then you say it's not proof, and you continue to argue the point. Ok, good for you.

Like I say, you're entitled to you opinion. What I am hoping is that the casual reader here can make up their minds for themselves.

 

[Bill Williams]

I am glad you are not convinced by these strawman arguments. You do know, however, that it was precisely these behavioural indicators that allowed trained investigators to declare guilt before any forensics came in?

Thanks for this. Look up de Felice's analysis of this case.

I always questions these experts who have such strong opinions from far away and not being involved in the case. My brother's wife is a psychiatrist and she would never give me an opininion or diagnosis outside of her office even if I described some of my issues to her, which are many. Professionals don't tend to take to the media and garner attention for themselves. this is I don't believe Steve Moore knows what he is talking about.

Do you even know who de Felice is?

You are making my argument... but if I provide proof for you, you won't accept it anyways. Good for you.

 

[Grinder]

You know, your probably right, if Amanda didn't lock that door, and she didn't if she is innocent, then your theory must be correct, there is no other possible explanation, If of course she didn't lock that door. I'm certain you must be right.

Excellent!

I would say she went from being a witness to becoming a suspect after the first one, had she a lawyer then the second one should have been taped, but she didn't so there was no reason to I would think. I can see why the questioning stopped once she said she was there because she now became a suspect, but I agree, additional questions should have been asked but weren't.

Once she became a suspect they couldn't legally interview her without a lawyer and they, by law, had to tape. Mignini tried to get around the law with some lame idea that he was just a notary but the supremes didn't buy it and threw out the 5:45 declaration. Massei let it in through a back door by allowing Patrick's lawsuit at the same time as the murder trial.

 

[Sherlock Holmes]

Excellent!

Um, sarcasm.......

Once she became a suspect they couldn't legally interview her without a lawyer and they, by law, had to tape. Mignini tried to get around the law with some lame idea that he was just a notary but the supremes didn't buy it and threw out the 5:45 declaration. Massei let it in through a back door by allowing Patrick's lawsuit at the same time as the murder trial.

It didn't really matter thanks to her gift, basically said the same. I think the real reason for the second one with Mignini is he was told about the first and wanted to hear it for himself, he got out of bed in the middle of the night, I bet he was pleased to say the least.