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

[Bill Williams]

Not a place to have a coffee or sit and enjoy the view with friends kind of social.

Have you conducted an extensive sociological study on how the students and various heroin addicts use the square and coexist within it? Where do you get the time what with the echolocation studies you've done on the way screams are reflected back from the valley right to Nara's window?

 

[Skind]

The buses don't enter the square what are you talking about.

Irrelevant. Also wrong if PMF sources are correct. The buses weren't running yet Curotalo said they were, yet you've said Curotalo wouldn't notice them as they were background noise.

You've now got to come up with a reason why Curotalo noticed buses he wouldn't notice whilst sitting in an area they wouldn't have been near.

You may not know it, but you've just presented another reason to disbelieve him.

 

[Skind]

Not a place to have a coffee or sit and enjoy the view with friends kind of social.

Irrelevant. You've provided a reason for people other than Curotalo to have been in the area, even more so as they had an extra day of holiday, as you mentioned earlier.

 

[Grinder]

Arguing with guilters is like arguing about what colour the pieces on a chess board are.

Guilters are always pointing out, "Wow, look at all those black pieces! Therefore the colour of the pieces on the board must be all black.

And Groupies™ never notice that the squares are also black. Coincidence, I think not!"

The funniest part to me is that Briars made a point that Amanda's and Raf's accounting of the evening should be questioned because they admitted to being stoned. This was because the fact that Curatolo was on heroin that night and every night made many of us question his credibility.

The kids being stoned did make their memories foggy and inexact. They don't claim to have a crystal clear memory of that evening, which fits with being stoned. Here's a little ditty that may verify the phenomena.

We are being consistent in saying when people are in altered states they don't have as clear of recall as when unaltered. If Amanda didn't remember exactly when they ate that is normal under the circumstances. Curatolo being a heroin addict would have even a harder time remembering what happened on a specific night months before.

 

[Skind]

If he wanted to lie he could have said he looked over the rail and saw a couple by the gate, His story is believable , especially because he didn't embellish the facts and say they left in a hurry and came back or something like that. His bench is near the rail where a couple looked out at what? A news reporter encouraged him to come forward not the PLE.

Or he could have lied by saying he saw them when he hadn't. Pretty big embellishment there.

He would likely know about the car park CCTV, so he can't say he saw them by the gate. He would also have to come up with a reason why he was looking over the rails.

They had to have been where only he could see them in order to make the lie believable.

And yes, he certainly did embellish his story when he described their behaviour. You're saying that something that actually happened is one of the reasons why you don't think it happened.

 

[Grinder]

The buses don't enter the square what are you talking about.

Where were the mirage disco buses?

You haven't answered how the kiosk stays in business if nobody goes to the plaza. Curatolo said there were all sorts of young people there with costumes on, yet you say people don't go there. You say that maybe they were still wearing costumes from the day before but you don't explain why they would be in the plaza if there were no disco buses if nobody goes to the plaza. According to C there were lots of people with costumes. Were they all singles or groups or were there some couples? Since he noticed other people's attire did he tell us what the kids were wearing?

I truly don't understand why anybody that believes in guilt at all would defend this obviously bad witness. Is it that there just isn't the substantive circumstantial evidence needed to convict?

 

[Bill Williams]

The funniest part to me is that Briars made a point that Amanda's and Raf's accounting of the evening should be questioned because they admitted to being stoned. This was because the fact that Curatolo was on heroin that night and every night made many of us question his credibility.

The kids being stoned did make their memories foggy and inexact. They don't claim to have a crystal clear memory of that evening, which fits with being stoned. Here's a little ditty that may verify the phenomena.

We are being consistent in saying when people are in altered states they don't have as clear of recall as when unaltered. If Amanda didn't remember exactly when they ate that is normal under the circumstances. Curatolo being a heroin addict would have even a harder time remembering what happened on a specific night months before.

But let's be clear..... their memories were foggy and inexact mainly as it related to distinguishing which evening was which evening; at interrogation were the cops talking about Tuesday Oct 30 when Knox worked, or the 31st when they were out and partying, or Nov 1 when they were (unexpectedly) in because of the twin reasons that Lumumba told Knox she was not needed for a regular shift at La Chic, and Jovana Popovic showed up unexpectedly to tell Raffaele (through Knox who answered the door) that he was no longer needed to take her to the railway station.

In the high pressure of a police interrogation, they were expected to remember all this - to the minute - without being able to consult a calendar so as to distinguish some unremarkable evenings, one from another.

It wasn't just that their memories might have been foggy, compared to a heroin addict... it's that they were under pressure to remember what happened which night with no particular reason to have remembered. At the very least, there was an obligation on the police to help them sort out the activities on each night, rather then deny them a calendar....

...... but remember, an interrogation is not about eliciting information, as if they were "persons informed of the facts". Interrogations are always about getting the person in the chair to confess - and more than that, confess to a theory of event that cops bring into the room.

http://www.legalmatch.com/law-library/article/interrogation-lawyers.html

An interrogation is the direct questioning of a person under conditions which are partly or fully controlled by the questioner. A police interrogation involves persuasion, influence, and trickery with the goal being to obtain a confession or at least an admission of anything that would implicate the suspect in criminal behavior.

 

[Grinder]

Bill, they did not have clear memories of the evening at any time, to this day. Amanda didn't remember the call to her mother. Please don't school me on the facts as I have been paying attention since day one.

Amanda has made it clear that she couldn't remember time details on more than one occasion. There is nothing unusual about that. It doesn't need you defending and excusing .

They were not under extreme pressure the first day or the second. They certainly were suffering from shock.

The point is that no one in an altered situation can be counted to remember details. That's sort of the point of getting stoned.

Briars unwittingly made the case that neither Curatolo nor the kids should be expected to have perfect memories about a night like other nights.

I know what the police did and have been making that case for some time. Go check my first post here.

 

[Briars]

Where were the mirage disco buses?

You haven't answered how the kiosk stays in business if nobody goes to the plaza. Curatolo said there were all sorts of young people there with costumes on, yet you say people don't go there. You say that maybe they were still wearing costumes from the day before but you don't explain why they would be in the plaza if there were no disco buses if nobody goes to the plaza. According to C there were lots of people with costumes. Were they all singles or groups or were there some couples? Since he noticed other people's attire did he tell us what the kids were wearing?

I truly don't understand why anybody that believes in guilt at all would defend this obviously bad witness. Is it that there just isn't the substantive circumstantial evidence needed to convict?

The kiosk sells papers magazines and such. People walk over buy what they need then walk away. With all the time you spend here, why not take a trip to Perugia and Piazza Grimana, then you might have something to base your comments on. You will see for yourself that activity happens around the piazza, the buses park in the road near the piazza, The University for Stanieri is across the street where students hang out, the bar near by is busy , no one hangs out in the square unless they are playing basketball . It is an empty ugly square near a busy intersection.

 

[Bill Williams]

Bill, they did not have clear memories of the evening at any time, to this day. Amanda didn't remember the call to her mother. Please don't school me on the facts as I have been paying attention since day one.

Amanda has made it clear that she couldn't remember time details on more than one occasion. There is nothing unusual about that. It doesn't need you defending and excusing .

They were not under extreme pressure the first day or the second. They certainly were suffering from shock.

The point is that no one in an altered situation can be counted to remember details. That's sort of the point of getting stoned.

Briars unwittingly made the case that neither Curatolo nor the kids should be expected to have perfect memories about a night like other nights.

I know what the police did and have been making that case for some time. Go check my first post here.

Grinder - in no way shape or form am I defending or excusing. I am observing what Briars unwittingly observes.

One does not need to perform studies on memory of recreational marijuana use. The point is that there is nothing really unusual about the narrative Amanda and Raffaele had which was conflated - it was conflated by normal remembering, and marijuana probably had nothing (or little) to do with it. The point is that the interrogation is not an exercise in helping them remember.

Why? Because that's not what interrogations are for. As soon as they asked Raffaele to surrender his Nike's the goal was to either get a confession from them, or get self-incriminating information tying them to the crime.

The police were successful at that. It has, really, nothing to do with what they remembered or didn't remember because by the time the interrogations started it was not about the PLE trying to construct a time-line based on their memories, faulty or not.

Your second paragraph above has three sentences in it. I agree heartily with the first two. What I don't get is the need for the inflated language of the third.....

 

[Grinder]

Grinder - in no way shape or form am I defending or excusing. I am observing what Briars unwittingly observes.

One does not need to perform studies on memory of recreational marijuana use. The point is that there is nothing really unusual about the narrative Amanda and Raffaele had which was conflated - it was conflated by normal remembering, and marijuana probably had nothing (or little) to do with it. The point is that the interrogation is not an exercise in helping them remember.

Bill they were stoned and they couldn't reconstruct the evening. They have both said so and not just about the interogation.

Do you think there is professional marijuana use?

You probably have no idea how pot impacts memory. While one could clearly remember whether or not one was involved with murder remembering times and calls would be more difficult.

Amanda couldn't remember things before and after Nov. 5th.

The point should be that Amanda and Raf didn't need to remember while Curatolo did have to remember. The weakness of Curatolo can't be put against the kids.

If the kids can be challenged for preciseness it doesn't matter. Did they eat at 8:30 or was Raf washing the dishes from earlier when his dad called. It doesn't matter. In this conversation what matters concerns Curatolo being credible. He isn't.

Go back and read the reports. A & R couldn't remember. It would be more suspect if they both remembered exactly the same.

 

[Bill Williams]

Bill they were stoned and they couldn't reconstruct the evening. They have both said so and not just about the interogation.

Do you think there is professional marijuana use?

You probably have no idea how pot impacts memory. While one could clearly remember whether or not one was involved with murder remembering times and calls would be more difficult.

Amanda couldn't remember things before and after Nov. 5th.

The point should be that Amanda and Raf didn't need to remember while Curatolo did have to remember. The weakness of Curatolo can't be put against the kids.

If the kids can be challenged for preciseness it doesn't matter. Did they eat at 8:30 or was Raf washing the dishes from earlier when his dad called. It doesn't matter. In this conversation what matters concerns Curatolo being credible. He isn't.

Go back and read the reports. A & R couldn't remember. It would be more suspect if they both remembered exactly the same.

.... and we're disagreeing about........ ?

Check that, don't answer - this promises to be one of those classic exchanges we've had. I sometimes get the feeling that we're related!

 

[RWVBWL]

That travelin' sound...

While the piazza itself isn't busy the kiosk is near a busy traffic stop. Four lanes funnel into that intersection next to the square, The other thing to note is although the gate is clearly visible from the rail the drive and cottage were not. In fact a 3 story building and dense trees blocked the cottage from the Piazza and would muffle any sounds that might have been heard.This is why it makes sense that Curatolo was not startled by the scream. Nara's window faced the cottage with nothing in the way. A scream would have echoed in the valley and traveled straight to her closed window.

Hi Briars,
Do you think that Nara would have been able to hear a window being broken on a chilly November night?

Would this loud sound, mere feet from Merediths bedroom,
also have echoed thru the valley, reversed course and traveled back to Nara's apartment, which had all its doors and double paned windows closed?

Heck, what about the tow truck driver conversing with the occupants of the disabled car? Do you think that Nara should have also have heard this conversation also? Wasn't it even closer to her apartment than the bedroom that Meredith was murrdered in?
Sure it was...

Gosh, you've mentioned that even a coversation from the cottage patio can be heard near Nara's apartment.

Do you know if Nara ever call the cops to complain about all that noise coming from that 2 story apartment that housed a buncha college aged students and young adults?

 

[RWVBWL]

I wasn’t able to see him well because the house was not
well lit. Only Meredith’s room had light. I remember because the abat-jour was switched on.

.
RW, you are right, the discussion always favors the PIPs when truth is discovered.

And good find about the lamp.

Maybe Rudy is preparing an explanation in case his fingerprints are found on Amanda's desk lamp. If he attacked Meredith in the dark, he would not realize Meredith had her own table lamp. After Meredith screamed, he may have gone to Amanda's bedroom window to see if anyone was responding. When the coast was clear, he may have taken Amanda's lamp back to Meredith's bedroom to survey the damage with some subdued light.

If you recall, when he broke into his neighbor's house (the lady with the gold watch), he caused a fire by putting a cloth over a lamp. I suspect the cloth was being used to subdue the light from the lamp, not to deliberately start a fire. So using a subdued light is part of his MO ... IMO.

As an aside, one thing I have always been curious about is why Rudy told his Skype friend that Meredith's scream was loud enough to be heard from the street. How would he know? Did he see someone reacting to the scream? Or perhaps someone told him about it?

And similar to your argument re Nara, if Meredith's scream could be heard from the street, it was because Filomena's window was already broken open.
.

Did you know that we found and discussed that in the original thread many years ago? This could be referring to one of the desk lamps or the wall light. There is insufficient information to say which.

The state of any lights being on when the door is kicked open is also not discovered. This and the state of any objects in the room should have been the subject of the first round of questioning for everyone that was at Meredith's door that afternoon.

Hi CodyJuneau and Dan O.,
So I had a look in the original thread, searched for the word abat-jour and found nothing,
searched for lamp and found you Dan O., discussing the issue with the old guilters who seem to have bailed from the discussion here on The JREF.

Anyways,
I find it odd that Rudy Guede would call a lamp the abat-jour.
I'd never heard that word before, it made me look it up on Google.

Why is Guede mentioning this lamp?
The same reason he mentions drinking from the juice bottle?

Even though I’d bought some drinks with the kebab, I
needed to drink some more because it was very spicy,
and I asked her if I could drink something. She told me
to help myself as if I was at my place. I opened the
fridge and drank some apricot juice and water too.
Since she wasn't paying attention, I drank out of the
bottle because I didn't know where the glasses were,
and then I sat down.

Or was that the water bottle also?


I believe it is as CodyJuneau speculates above,
Guede is giving an explanation for what he touched...

Chalk it up to another odd twist in this case,
1 where Rudy Guede sees people playing basketball after he leaves Meredith to die in her own blood,
while Antonio Curatolo sees no one at all.

That said,
I still find it odd that Rudy never mention seeing anyone wearing masks or Halloween costumes as he walked around town or went out dancing at the clubs after he left Meredith to die on the night after Halloween, yet Antonio Curatolo states that he sees people in masks and costumes.

Maybe that heroin high Toto was on made his mind a little trippy...

 

[GreyFox]

The funniest part to me is that Briars made a point that Amanda's and Raf's accounting of the evening should be questioned because they admitted to being stoned. This was because the fact that Curatolo was on heroin that night and every night made many of us question his credibility.

The kids being stoned did make their memories foggy and inexact. They don't claim to have a crystal clear memory of that evening, which fits with being stoned. Here's a little ditty that may verify the phenomena.

We are being consistent in saying when people are in altered states they don't have as clear of recall as when unaltered. If Amanda didn't remember exactly when they ate that is normal under the circumstances. Curatolo being a heroin addict would have even a harder time remembering what happened on a specific night months before.

Exactly... how hypocrite.no one really remembers exactly what they did step by step the night before. My wife corrects me all the time with my lousy memory. It's even worse if you've been drinking or smoking pot. But we all know Heroin is a stronger drug than both Alchohol and pot.No way Curatalo gets a free pass but Knox and Sollecito are supposedly liars.

 

[Chris_Halkides]

Amanda's reflection on the last few years

Amanda's conversation with Bob Graham here. "How can there be a conspiracy of three people when one person’s evidence is clear and non-negotiable and two others’ are unclear, complicated and circumstantial? How is that possible?"

 

[Grinder]

I don't think I've expressed the point sharply enough.

The prosecution's witnesses have to be credible. If Anglo is reading he could contribute the terms the Italians use for evidence - precise and a couple of other terms.

The defendants don't have be able to provide an alibi. They don't have to be credible and they certainly don't need to be able to reconstruct the evening and night of the 1st with precision and accuracy.

When the PGP say that Curatolo is as credible as the kids because they were both high misses the basic point of how trials are to be decided. The prosecution must make a case that is beyond a reasonable doubt. That means Curatolo and the other witnesses are held to higher standard than the defendants are. The defendants were forced to give a narrative of the evening while the witnesses weren't.

As much as the PGP and the prosecution wish to make the case that the defendants lack of precision should be held against them, it shouldn't. I'm sure someone in the area was drunk as a skunk that night and couldn't recall anything, so what?

It would be great for the kids had they remember better and earlier, but not required.

 

[Grinder]

Amanda's conversation with Bob Graham here. "How can there be a conspiracy of three people when one person’s evidence is clear and non-negotiable and two others’ are unclear, complicated and circumstantial? How is that possible?"

Thanks for the link. Another missed opportunity to lay out more of the defense. I am curious as to what this means "There’s a prison of nonclosure because the way that the investigators and prosecutors conducted themselves was wrong and has never been brought to light or acknowledged. I want them held accountable for the mistakes they made. I want it understood what they have done in this case, not just because of how it affected me but because unless they are held accountable, they can do this again and again and again."

At this time she needs to show what was wrong with the case and do as much as she can to show she is innocent. People that think she is guilty will only be pleased that she is suffering.

This seemed odd - It’s conspicuous how easy Rudy Guede got off, considering the evidence against him. It’s conspicuous how his versions of what happened have changed over time to divert attention and responsibility away from him and onto Raffaele and me. It’s conspicuous that despite his history of being armed and breaking into people’s houses, he was still able to walk the street without a care. How is that possible? The police knew about these incidents, yet never prosecuted him.

Odd use of conspicuous -

ETA - "How can there be a conspiracy of three people when one person’s evidence is clear and non-negotiable and two others’ are unclear, complicated and circumstantial? How is that possible?"

I must say that quote is goofy. Is she really that dense? Of course there could be a conspiracy and no evidence at the crime save for that of one. A quick example would be Charles Manson.

How can she be so inarticulate this late in the game? Why would she say complicated and circumstantial. The evidence against Rudy is circumstantial. What she should be saying is that there is no evidence of me in the room and the only evidence against Raf is a tiny amount of DNA on the bra clasp that was mishandled and left uncollected for almost two months, during which the area where it was found wasn't treated as CSI site.

 

[davefoc]

...
At this time she needs to show what was wrong with the case and do as much as she can to show she is innocent. People that think she is guilty will only be pleased that she is suffering.

...

I can't imagine what she could do to change people's minds. I read through most of the interview. She comes across as a reasonable, intelligent young person (I'm 64, people in their twenties are young to me). Presenting herself as a normal, intelligent, empathetic, thoughtful individual looks to be about the limit of what she can accomplish with regards to convincing people of her innocence.

Can truthers be convinced that the world trade center wasn't brought down by thermite secretly installed before the jets impacted the building? Of course not. Briars provides excruciating evidence of the power of various biases to drive people to hold on to false conclusions. How could Knox personally deal with that? I think the only thing she can do is what she is doing and then she is just going to need to accept that a percentage of the population is going to believe she and Raffaele committed a horrible crime and got away with it.

My hope for her and Raffaele is that in five to ten years they will have faded into relative anonymity as the story of this bizarre case fades in the public mind. It would be nice if Italy could use this case as a turning point to institute reforms in their judicial/police systems. That doesn't seem likely to me from my outsider's view point though.

 

[Grinder]

I can't imagine what she could do to change people's minds. I read through most of the interview. She comes across as a reasonable, intelligent young person (I'm 64, people in their twenties are young to me). Presenting herself as a normal, intelligent, empathetic, thoughtful individual looks to be about the limit of what she can accomplish with regards to convincing people of her innocence.

Can truthers be convinced that the world trade center wasn't brought down by thermite secretly installed before the jets impacted the building? Of course not. Briars provides excruciating evidence of the power of various biases to drive people to hold on to false conclusions. How could Knox personally deal with that? I think the only thing she can do is what she is doing and then she is just going to need to accept that a percentage of the population is going to believe she and Raffaele committed a horrible crime and got away with it.

My hope for her and Raffaele is that in five to ten years they will have faded into relative anonymity as the story of this bizarre case fades in the public mind. It would be nice if Italy could use this case as a turning point to institute reforms in their judicial/police systems. That doesn't seem likely to me from my outsider's view point though.

I added some to my post while you were writing. I don't think she comes off well in the article and I do believe she needs to make the case for being not guilty.

The fact that jail isn't fun isn't exactly groundbreaking. Of course she'd like to get on with her life.

If she is suffering from PSTD maybe she shouldn't be giving interviews.

Btw, there are no quotes or a least most of the article is without quotes so the writer paraphrased and made it more articulate.